Discussion of the UK Government
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
 
By Abernathy
Membership Days Membership Days Posts
#172749
I think that Nadine's blog needs a thread of its own, so full to the brim it is of the most gobsmackingly unmitigated, batshit insane, raving shite.

Read it here and be amazed:

http://blog.dorries.org/Default.aspx


Take special note of Nad's observation that backbench Tories shout at Cameron in the street:

"Oi! We're still here - don't forget about how our voters feel when you're gadding about on the Eurostar, eating Sarkozy's legs and sucking Merkel's face."

I am not making this up.
 
By Malcolm Armsteen
Membership Days Posts
#172751
Saw this earlier:
The Humanist magazine are running an online 'bad faith' poll and I am apparently in the lead.

I am not sure why anyone would admit to being a humanist and part of an organisation which has such extreme views. A humanist recently commented that, not only did he believe that abortion was acceptable right up to the moment of birth, but that termination of a child's life was acceptable up until the point where the child had the ability to reason, understand and justify life.
Insane. But apparently her 'fans' believe her.
 
By Abernathy
Membership Days Membership Days Posts
#172757
Malcolm Armsteen wrote:Well, I suppose you'd eat his legs as he's a frog. No idea about Merkel, though.

Oh yeah - frog's legs - I get it now. That's such a shite joke it genuinely went right over my head until you explained it.
 
By Winegums
Membership Days Posts
#172759
Malcolm Armsteen wrote:Saw this earlier:
The Humanist magazine are running an online 'bad faith' poll and I am apparently in the lead.

I am not sure why anyone would admit to being a humanist and part of an organisation which has such extreme views. A humanist recently commented that, not only did he believe that abortion was acceptable right up to the moment of birth, but that termination of a child's life was acceptable up until the point where the child had the ability to reason, understand and justify life.
Insane. But apparently her 'fans' believe her.

I've heard the argument before though, so I'm not inclined to think she's lying. After all, babies are just living animals, they're not really "people" since they don't have personalities or mental faculties (in b4 massive argument on what defines people). That said, I don't think they should be abortable, and I doubt most humanists feel this way either. This is an utterly transparent example of nad 'poisoning the well' against this organisation which clearly sees she's batshit insane.

That said, I'm not surprised a Christian would say this, I saw some Christians comment that they want all soldiers dead, and think its gods judgement. They even protest at the soldiers' funerals!
 
By Abernathy
Membership Days Membership Days Posts
#172762
Nad is saying that some humanists advocate murder.

Why? Because it suits her agenda to conflate the abortion of a human blastocyst - no more than a collection of cells - with killing a sentient, conscious, thinking, fully developed human being. Never mind that that is clearly an out and out lie - no humanist would ever advocate such a thing - it suits Nad's bonkers purpose.
 
By Bails
Membership Days
#177055
She has since linked to the source of the baby killing quote.

I can't get onto her blog at the moment for some reason, but I think it was essentially saying that if you had to choose between killing a newborn baby or a 'developed' person, it would be less bad to kill the baby, because it is less aware of what's going on.
 
By Malcolm Armsteen
Membership Days Posts
#177368
If you could save a million lives by torturing one person, would it be morally acceptable?
The Utilitarian Conundrum.

If I can save a million lives by taking one, the position looks clear.
If I can save two lives by taking one - it starts to look a bit less obvious, but the principle is the same.
By Outroar
Membership Days
#177372
Winegums wrote:
Malcolm Armsteen wrote:Saw this earlier:
The Humanist magazine are running an online 'bad faith' poll and I am apparently in the lead.

I am not sure why anyone would admit to being a humanist and part of an organisation which has such extreme views. A humanist recently commented that, not only did he believe that abortion was acceptable right up to the moment of birth, but that termination of a child's life was acceptable up until the point where the child had the ability to reason, understand and justify life.
Insane. But apparently her 'fans' believe her.

I've heard the argument before though, so I'm not inclined to think she's lying. After all, babies are just living animals, they're not really "people" since they don't have personalities or mental faculties (in b4 massive argument on what defines people). That said, I don't think they should be abortable, and I doubt most humanists feel this way either. This is an utterly transparent example of nad 'poisoning the well' against this organisation which clearly sees she's batshit insane.
I've used that kind of example before, not because I think it's acceptable to kill children, but to try and clarify the terms in a debate and figure out what distinguishes murder from abortion, from an ethical point of view. It's a rhetorical question.

I wouldn't be surprised if the humanist was doing something similar, not actually saying it was OK at all. I also wouldn't be surprised if the humanist is fictitious.
By shyamz
Membership Days Posts
#177384
A humanist recently commented that, not only did he believe that abortion was acceptable right up to the moment of birth, but that termination of a child's life was acceptable up until the point where the child had the ability to reason, understand and justify life.
Even if this was a 100% accurate quote (which I doubt), it still shows her doing what a lot of idiots do to try and prove their own point- namely looking at a group that holds the kind of views they dislike, seeking out a quote they can use in their favour, and then acting as though just because one person in the group says it, all the others must think the same.

Yes, all humanists believe in abortion up to and beyond full term, because one humanist says so. Ridiculous. Sadly though, this kind of thing works on some people.
By Outroar
Membership Days
#177390
shyamz wrote:Even if this was a 100% accurate quote (which I doubt), it still shows her doing what a lot of idiots do to try and prove their own point- namely looking at a group that holds the kind of views they dislike, seeking out a quote they can use in their favour, and then acting as though just because one person in the group says it, all the others must think the same.
Well yeah, that's a consequence of having seven billion people in the world. There's always going to be some nobhead making a bad example of any group you can name. That's how The Mail can splash Muslims burning poppies or whatever across their front pages.
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 36
Brexit Fuckwit Thread

I swallowed the Brexit lies. Now I regret telli[…]

Jeremy Corbyn.

Whoopee. Dickhead's moved on to Game of Thrones qu[…]

Sajid Javid

"I don't want to turn you over to the mob ou[…]

Labour, Generally.

Where would Labour be now in the polls if they fol[…]