₦airaland Forum

@ Thor.

Comparisons are not stupid.

The amount of money stolen may not be as large but the fact is that corruption in the UK parliament has been shown to be rife.
Just as in Nigeria, there is a culture amongst UK MPs that says that they must get as much money out of the system as they can, regardless of wether or not it is morally acceptable.
We can't say "legally acceptable" here because the legality of the issue is irrelevant - they make the law.

You say that the comparison is stupid but if you discuss this subject with any UK citizen, they will tell you the same thing. The system has been utterly abused and the MPs have shown themselves to be a bunch of immoral crooks. To me, regardless of the amount, that shows that a comparison is not stupid.

UK Parliament is full of corrupt scumbags.
The majority of them are swindling the system and it's a system that they set up.

Anyone who thinks these vermin are innocent is living in a different world.

Ask any citizen of the UK what he thinks about this issue and he will tell you that he views UK politicians as corrupt. I've yet to meet one single person who says otherwise. The recession isn't the factor here - these people were screwing the taxpayer. If you or I acted like they did, we would be out of a job the police probably called.

Don't make me laugh about "democracy", Thor. This UK govt has done more to erode democracy than any other in history.
As for accountability? They made the Speaker the scapegoat, have months until any inquiry (so they can sweep it quietly under the carpet) and since when has any MP really paid for their dishonesty?
People have resigned and paid back money? How many? 99% of them are saying "We knew that what we were doing was wrong but the system allowed us to". The system they created!!!!
That's pure moral corruption.

Accountability in the UK strikes an alarming comparison with that in Nigeria. The scale of corruption may be different but the rot is just as deep-set. Stating that is not stupidity. It's fact.

@ Huxley.

DavidDylan is not a young Earth creationist.

He admitted so a few months ago.

So basically you're slinking off with your tail between you legs.

You've been found wanting and you know it.

Bye-bye retard.

Go to London.
You will see blacks and whites drinking together in bars. Groups of guys on a night out are often made up of both races. No problems.

The only people both groups don't get on with are the Pakistanis. They have segregated themselves from UK society and nobody trusts them.

[quote author=Tayo-D link=topic=273680.msg3892039#msg3892039 date=1242763474]So why are those women forcing their choices on the babies? Why not let's have those babies and let them determine when they are p\old enough whether they want to be killed or not. Why should others sentence them to death without their input?[/quote]Sorry. But that is just a pathetic argument.

The women who make those choices do so because it is their body and therefore their right.
Who are you to claim that they have no right? What right do you have to decide what a woman does with her own body?
Your statement is just pure hypocrisy.

As for having the baby grow up to make a choice? If they did that, there would be no abortion would there? An adult cannot be aborted. It's a purely illogical argument.

Why do you call yourself Horus?

Was Horus not evil? After all, he was the fore-runner of Christ.

LOL.

You still haven't bought anything to the table. Are you going to actually back any of your threats up or are you going to bore the crap out of us with more "You guys just wait"? What are you going to do? Tell your father to come to my house to beat me up?
Empty threats are those made by a pussy.

By the way. Not that it matters to a dunce like you but a Freemason's duties are to his God first, then his family, then his friends. In that order. Freemasonry comes way down the list.
That rather pisses over your pathetic claim that a Freemason would sacrifice a family member for money or worship some crazy communal deity.
You don't believe me? Then go look up the First Degree Charge on Google. Or the oath taken by an Entered Apprentice Freemason. Even a slowpoke like you should be able to do that. But hey!!! Freemasonry is so secret, what is it's ritual doing on the net? Oops. Looks like you've been talking shit again.
It's so secret that you can find out everything about it just by moving your mouse and clicking on your PC screen.

Really small boi. You need to go back to the drawing board and start again. All you're doing here is making yourself look like a complete cretin.

The Corinthians passage is a product of it's time.

Women were powerful leaders prior to it's writing. Then along came chavaunism.

Forget it. It's outdated.


Pastor is right though. Women do talk too much.

Horus:
Do you see that in Isaiah 45:7 your Christian"god" is telling you that he created evil. And you Christians are blaming every non-christians when your god created evil.

Nope. That's not my god, bobo.
That's the Jewish god of the OT.

The Jews wore head-dresses not mitres.
Christians probably copied the mitre from Mithraism.

kiwi992:
Hey You Two Nitwits,


Talking about the brouhaha concening the Freemasons on TV, how about this BBC Newsnight program hosted by Jeremy Vine, back in 2001:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/events/newsnight/1238656.stm

That's a "brouhaha"? That's an "outing"?
About the closest it gets to scandal is by mentioning P2. Which incidentally was not a Lodge of Free and Accepted Freemasons. It was struck off years before any scandal.

How dare you dispute what I tell you eh?  How bloody dare?

LOL. You sound like a little kid. "I'll pee in my pants if you don't give me sweets".
Tell you what mugu. I dare because I can. I dare because you're as thick as shit. I dare because you're an idiot who knows nothing.

Why don't you do a friggin search on this Forum and get an idea of me.

LMAO. I already have an idea of what you are. It's called "pathetic".

Now apologise to me and shut your gob or else more would be coming your way.  You wanna fight, I'll give you a damn good fight.  See who can be more insultive - you two looneys with your archaic Shakespearan English expression or I.

I've seen harder dogshit stuck to my shoe. Bring it if you're capable. Stop talking about it though - just put up or shut-up you gay.

You two MUST get ready for a drawn-out fight and we shall see who's the fighter.  I'll prove to you that I can just be as nasty as you two plonkers.  This would teach you never to start a fight with anybody in this Forum or elswhere, next time.

Yawn. Like I said - BRING IT ON!!!    

You better come back 'cos I've not finished with you yet.  Remember, you asked for it.

So you keep saying. I've yet to see anything of veracity or any evidence from you yet though. Other than bluster.

 

My apologies to the decent Freemasons in this Forum.  I didn't want to bring up all this.  These two knuckle heads asked for it.

Like I said, they probably think you're an asshole too.

Maybe you can't read. Maybe you're just stupid.

My personal theory is that you're a bit of both.

Let me just state this again:

A Provinicial Grand Lodge is not a Grand Lodge. It is totally different.

There is no Provincial Grand Lodge for NW UK.

Next time you write "retard" look in the mirror.

kiwi992:
Bastage,



Have you ever heard of PROVINCIAL GRAND LODGES?

Yes I have. If you'd bothered to read, I've already mentioned Provinces.
There is no Provincial Grand Lodge for the whole of UK NW as you so erroneously claimed.

In case you didn't know, there are lots of them scattered all over the UK.  Those are Grand Lodges too, each with its own Grand Master.  You fool!

No. They are Provincial Grand Lodges. They are not Grand Lodges.  

You lot are harping on about just one Grand Lodge in England as well as one in Scotland.  Go and search for Provincial Grand Lodges.  I'm sure you'll find them all over the place.  You need to research the information before coming here to doubt me or calling me a liar.

I would suggest you do the very same research that you are advocating for others before spouting any more crap. As I've already said, a Provincial Grand Lodge is not a Grand Lodge.

How dare you doubt what I say?  Who gave you the audacity?  Are you two retards or what?

I have the "audacity" because I know you are talking crap.  

Bastard, more like!  Supposed to be a Free Mason and he can not remain quiet about it!  Free Mason my arse.  Since when did you become a FreeMason?  Did you ever swear an oath of secrecy?  Coming here to pretend to be a FreeMasopn.

Firstly, I never said I was a Freemason. I don't "pretend" to be anything, yet you pretend to know everything about a subject you're clearly ignorant of.
Secondly, you know nothing about the oath of secrecy. It does not bar any Freemason from talking about Freemasonry. The only thing secret in Freemasonry are the signs and words used to identify one Freemason to another.

I'm sure there are hundreds of FreeMasons in this Forum that would never ever, make known their membership of the Craft.  Stupid bugger!

Perhaps. Perhaps not. But if there are and they have read this, I can guarantee that they probably think that you are an asshole too.

You want more, you'll get it.  Remember, you asked for it.

Yep. I asked you to supply details of "brouhahas" and outings in the UK press.
You've yet to come through with anything but bullshit.

@ Pastor AIO.

Then isn't it likely that the story of Jonah is based on Babylonian astrology?
I do know that is where the Greeks adapted their Hellenic system from.

Pastor AIO:
What do you know about the Precession of the Equinoxes?

Nothing. Is it anything to do with the Age of Aquarius?

huxley2:
Is huxley2 not remarkably similar to huxley? Could you not have made that leap-of-faith? pardon the pun.
Which bit of the Jonah story was allegorical - his entire life OR the incident of the whale/fish

I said if you get banned again. You may decide not to come back as Huxley3 and use an unconnected name.

I take his entire life to be allegorical.

It could have been a Whale Shark.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whale_shark

To tell the truth though, Jonah is yet another of those stories not to be taken literally.
It is meant to be an illustration of Jonah's god's power and mercy.

Huxley. If you do get banned again, at least let us know who you are so that I know who am debating with.


@Pastor AIO. Pisces Austrinus? All I know about it is that it is meant to symbolise the age of Christianity in astrology.
Can you expand?

Maybe the people who commit those atrocities should accept responsibility rather than blaming it on God all the time?

kiwi992:
As I said, I am not a Free Mason so don't know what names you guys call your secret meeting places.  I was only relaying what was mentioned to me.

So you say. But as I've pointed out - either you or your source is lying.
You made a statement and you've been pulled on it because it's not true. Stop crying like a baby.

The British press exposed you guys years ago and we all know what you are up to.  Don't come here to try and fool people 'cos it was on TV.

Again, I ask for evidence. We can all make accusations but unless we can back them up, they're nothing but piss and wind.   

Oh yeah, talking about my English grammar, please point out to me as to where my grammar is incorrect.  I can teach you a lot about English grammar and comprehension, that's for sure.  Ten times more educated than you are as well.

Education isn't just about the correct use of grammar. It's about the proper use of knowledge as well. Something you seem to be lacking in. I'd therefore, refute your statement and suggest that you're probably only a tenth as educated.

My question still stands:  WHY WOULD ANYBODY WANT TO JOIN A SECRET SOCIETY?

Why would someone want to join a forum with a secret identity to denigrate others? Ever heard of the phrase "People in glass houses, ?"

I don't call you a liar. I call you an idiot.

kiwi992:
I'm not a Free Mason.  I presume you are one, so should know the difference in the names of the various Lodges – I don’t.  I could but only relate the story that he told me.  I don't know which name is which. 

Perhaps you ought to read and re-read my posting and take good note of what I said:

1.  ‘Investiture’ (there’s no mention of Grand Master in my posting!) 
2.  'UK North West'' (this is NOT the same as England or Scotland).

Then the guy was either lying to you or you didn't listen to a word he said. I'm assuming the latter.

There is only one Grand Lodge in England. It is based in London.
The guy could not even become head of all Lodges in the North West as they are all split into Provinces and administered separately.
Quite simply, there is no such position as the one you state because there isn't any location in Freemasonry such as NW England.

There was a brouhaha about the Free Masons in the UK, a few years ago, thus forcing them to open their doors to members of the public, inorder to repair their tarnished image.

That's simply not true.
Freemasonry in England held opening days known as "Freemasonry in the Community". This was nothing to do with any "bruohaha". If it was, perhaps you could point me to this so-called "bruohaha".

If you want to be pedantic, the comment said nothing of the sort. This is it again:

With or without religion, good people can behave well and bad people can do evil; but for good people to do evil — that takes religion.

Bullshit. It has nothing to do with pedantics or semantics.
Maybe you can't read syntax in the English language but I can.
The opening part of the statement refers to good and bad people. That means that it is discussing all people.
The final part of the statement refers to good people. That means that it is discussing the section of society that causes evil although good. It doesn't say "only some good people". It hasn't differentiated from the good people in the opening part of the statement and marginalised any of them. It hasn't peeled any part of those good people off. It is saying that all those good people from the first part of the statement who commit evil deeds do so motivated by religion. As stated, those good people are all the good people - not just some of them.

To say that the insertion of the word only into the statement justifies my argument is totally misleading.
"I shoot horses" means "I shoot horses". "I only shoot horses" still means that the horses are dead.

I'm done giving you grammar lessons. You don't pay me enough.

I have not had time to watch it all but what I have watched, the guy makes sense.

huxley:
The point we are debating is whether it take religion to motivate an ordinarily good person to do evil.

No it is not.
The point I made is that the statement made by Weinberg is incorrect. It summarises that religion is the only motivation for a good person to do evil.
That assertion is totally incorrect - religion is not the only motivating factor.

Yes, Pol Pot must have been an evil man a long while belong he physically killed or murdered the first man.  Look at the definition of evil I gave.

Somehow I doubt that. It's easy to demonise the whole lives of people once they've fallen.
But logically, Pol Pot was not thought of as being an evil man before he committed those atrocities - he had many people who followed him freely because they thought he was morally correct.

What about an atheist who commits a war-crime in the heat of battle? He may be defending his country but committing an act that is evil. By that quote, his evil act isn't evil!!!

Huxley. I don't give a shit about the Crusaders or Popes, Jesus or Calvin, etc - they're irrelevant. I don't deny that evil has been committed in the name of Christianity. My point is that religion is not the root of all evil caused by good men as the quote suggests. My other point is that there are also good atheists who commit evil deeds as well.
To suggest otherwise is ignorant, false, malicious and totally and utterly illogical.

I'm not interested in going into philosophy. It's irrelevant.
The quote states that "With or without religion, good people can behave well and bad people can do evil; but for good people to do evil — that takes religion."

"With or without religion implies that good people can be atheist or religious or that religion is not an issue. It then says that those people can do evil. But it then say that the only good people who commit evil acts do so because of religion."

That is utter, blatant bullshit. Basically, it's saying that the only good people who commit evil deeds are those who believe in religion.

We don't need to define good and evil. Pulling out philosophical concepts is a smoke-screen. The quote was written by an atheist and he uses the words "good" and "evil". We can therefore go off the generally accepted yardstick of atheism that an act of evil is an action that is viewed as immoral by the majority.

By implication, the quote is stating that the only decent people who commit immoral acts are the religious.
That is bullshit.

You have even admitted the Pol Pot could have been a good guy before he began committing atrocities. Do you not see the contradiction there?

OLAADEGBU:
Here are 6 main geologic evidences for the Genesis Flood of Noah

[list]
[li]Fossils of sea creatures high above sea level[/li]
[/list]
[list]
[li]Rapid burial of plants and animals[/li]
[/list]
[list]
[li]Rapid deposited sediment layers spread across vast areas[/li]
[/list]
[list]
[li]Sediment transported long distances[/li]
[/list]
[list]
[li]Rapid or no erosion between strata[/li]
[/list]
[list]
[li]Many strata laid down in rapid succession[/li]
[/list]

Those criteria are only of any use if you believe in the Young Earth theory. They're therefore totally and utterly irrelevant.

Well, I know nothing of Pol Pot before he committed his evil acts but I am sure there was a time when he was a good man.

*sigh* Then you agree that the quote "but for good people to do evil — that takes religion" is wrong.

It should read "but for some good people to do evil - that takes religion".

A list of atheistic states in the 20th century and the number of people murdered by their regimes:

Afghanistan 1978–1992 1,750,000
Albania 1944–1985 100,000
Angola 1975–2002 125,000
Bulgaria 1944–1989 222,000
China/PRC 1923–2007 76,702,000
Cuba 1959–1992 73,000
Czechoslovakia 1948–1968 65,000
Ethiopia 1974–1991 1,343,610
Greece 1946–1949 20,000
Hungary 1948–1989 27,000
Kampuchea/Cambodia 1973–1991 2,627,000
Laos 1975–2007 93,000
Mongolia 1926–2007 100,000
Mozambique 1975–1990 118,000
North Korea 1948–2007 3,163,000
Poland 1945–1948 1,607,000
Romania 1948–1987 438,000
Spain (Republic) 1936–1939 102,000
U.S.S.R. 1917–1987 61,911,000
Vietnam 1945–2007 1,670,000
Yugoslavia 1944–1980 1,072,000


I'm sure that everyone of those atheists who pulled the trigger was evil from birth (right?). Or maybe it was just one evil guy who murdered them all?

Was Pol Pot an evil man before he committed those atrocities?

You're twisting and turning, Huxley.
The fact is that all human beings (good or bad) are capable of committing evil/immoral acts and that a lot of them do.

Blaming it all on religion is lazy and crass.

huxley:
By the way, how does you "evil" act compare with the evil acts of Pol Pot?

Pol Pot was an atheist, Huxley.

I've commited acts that would be considered immoral - yes.

I've started fist-fights and I would steal money from my parents to buy sweets when I was younger.

Those acts certainly were not because of religion.

Are you telling me you've never done anything like that?