Shock: some people still have savings! Labour needs to tax them more.
A bizarre headline on LabourList yesterday read, “Only around 30% of households have savings – Labour has to stand up for the majority.”
It sounded like it might now be a crime to have savings, so I investigated further. It seems that some people are still financially independent and that even some of the middle classes still exist. This has upset Harriet Harman because it’s just not equality. There are plans to make people in large houses pay even more Council Tax than they do already and suggestions that private education should be taxed, but this in itself will not bring the middle classes to their knees, begging for state assistance and pledging allegiance to New Labour and globalism, so more must be done to make everyone ‘equal’, i.e. dependent.
The problem, of course, is that there is ‘wealth inequality’, but this is not a helpful way of looking at the problem. When I was on benefits, I was genuinely poor, because 90% of my money went on alcohol. Other people spend half their money on cigarettes. Other people paying off debts. Some people manage to live reasonably well on benefits. I had to decide whether I was going to eat a proper meal or put money in the electricity meter to have some heat or buy enough booze to last till the giro arrived. The booze invariably won. Squeezing better off people for more money wouldn’t have lifted me out of the poverty trap, especially when governments are so frivolous with the money people generously give them under threat of imprisonment.
While the Government gives away billions to the EU and is poised to give billions to the Climate Change Fairy, even more tax must be raised.
Why not SPEND more carefully and morally instead?
How much has it cost to support George Bush’s wars for empire?
How much does it cost to maintain New Labour’s underclass?
How much do unnecessary and immoral procedures on the NHS cost?
There is so much scope for reducing the tax burden, but New Labour must continue to attack the middle classes because they remain the most independent and effective barriers against the enemies within who are taxing us till the pips squeak in order to then spend that money to destroy our customs and freedom.
I would once have said, yes, let’s keep taxing the middle classes (as I’m not one of them), until I realised that they do perform a vital function in society. They have the money, the brains and positions of influence in society, so tend to make sure that the government of the day does not get too much power.
That’s why the traitors have it in for them.
How much has it cost to support George Bush’s wars for empire?
This is slightly disingenuous. I’m not sure that you even believe this yourself. Whatever the reason for Bush & Blair going into Iraq (I’d speculate 70% revenge, 20% oil, 10% WMDs) there’s no denying that Iraq was held to the whims of a man who committed genocide with impunity. He regularly had his rivals and enemies shot, raped and murdered. He was nearly as bad as the god of the Old Testament. I agree that the war was likely illegal and that we shouldn’t have gone in under the circumstances Blair and Bush put forth, but if you for one second believe that Iraq is a worse place for Saddam not being there, then you’re as nutty as English “world war iii approacheth! the end is nigh!” Viking.
How much does it cost to maintain New Labour’s underclass?
By which I assume you mean the apparent state subsidy on 16 year old girls siring heirs to petty thugs. I agree on this. Giving birth is incentivised in this country, and when the population is already at an unsustainably high level, that can’t continue.
How much do unnecessary and immoral procedures on the NHS cost?
Oh dear. Tell me you’re not calling abortion or sex change operations immoral.
Out of interest, which way do you vote Stewart? I’ll be up front and say I’m a pro-hunting, pro-Europe Tory.
George,
If you think that current bunch of criminals masquerading as world leaders will not eventually trigger a catastrophic war, the likes of which we have never seen before, I’m not the only nut.
Saddam was doing his Hitler-thing for decades before the US and UK deemed him undesirable. In fact, the US helped both put him and keep him in power, selling him millions of dollars of weapons with which to attack his neighbours. He only became undesirable when he stopped doing what he was told.
“It sounded like it might now be a crime to have savings…”
Give them time. Give them time…
George,
“This is slightly disingenuous.”
I don’t think it is. The war was NEVER about Saddam’s evil regime. If it had been, daddy Bush would have got rid of him when he had the opportunity. I’m not sure if people there would agree that being bombed back to the Stone Age with a million of their countrymen dead is a better deal.
By ‘New Labour’s underclass’ I was referring to the cost (human and financial) of keeping millions permanently unemployed.
“Oh dear. Tell me you’re not calling abortion or sex change operations immoral.”
Well, of course I am. Why should my taxes be inflated to pay for 200,000 murders a year? Plus the fact, if they weren’t ‘free’ (money-wise) then it just might mean fewer of them. Or is that a problem for you as well?
“Out of interest, which way do you vote Stewart? I’ll be up front and say I’m a pro-hunting, pro-Europe Tory.”
I voted UKIP last time for the simple reason that getting out the EU is about as urgent as it gets. The Lib/Lab/Con Party will betray us.
English,
“He only became undesirable when he stopped doing what he was told.”
That is so very spot on.
Julia,
I’m convinced that absolutely anything could be turned into a crime because they just have to say it’s for a) equality, b) health or c) the cheeeldren and nobody will complain, except thee, me and a few others.
If you think that current bunch of criminals masquerading as world leaders will not eventually trigger a catastrophic war, the likes of which we have never seen before, I’m not the only nut.
Save it for speaker’s corner.
Saddam was doing his Hitler-thing for decades before the US and UK deemed him undesirable.
And you believe that god and the heavenly host stood idly by whilst for the first 97,000 years on earth early human civilisation destroyed each other, died of appendicitis and poor dental hygiene and then suddenly decided to intervene. It shouldn’t be that difficult for you to understand
Furthermore your point doesn’t diminish the credibility of my point. He was a mass murderer. He was removed. War justified.
In fact, the US helped both put him and keep him in power, selling him millions of dollars of weapons with which to attack his neighbours. He only became undesirable when he stopped doing what he was told.
That’s not quite true. He became undesirable when he started committing genocide. It’s possible to justify wars. Again your god has significant previous on that. What you can’t justify is genocide (something your god actually did too! What a lovely fellow!)
I don’t think it is. The war was NEVER about Saddam’s evil regime. If it had been, daddy Bush would have got rid of him when he had the opportunity. I’m not sure if people there would agree that being bombed back to the Stone Age with a million of their countrymen dead is a better deal.
Actually the war was about the byproduct of Saddam’s evil regime. But the broader point is that it was justified because the man was murdering his own citizens. If Britain was under a tyrannical regime that meant families were dragged through the streets and forced at gunpoint to applaud their children being hanged, you probably wouldn’t be thrilled if the US said “We’d love to do something but unfortunately the UN is dragging its feet!”
By ‘New Labour’s underclass’ I was referring to the cost (human and financial) of keeping millions permanently unemployed.
Ah I see. Well thankfully the Tories have some pretty concrete plans on how to deal with that. I’ve been very impressed by how far Osborne went on incapacity benefits.
“Oh dear. Tell me you’re not calling abortion or sex change operations immoral.”
Well, of course I am. Why should my taxes be inflated to pay for 200,000 murders a year?
It’s not murder. Legally, it isn’t murder. They aren’t human, they’re human foetuses. Don’t call it murder because you’re being disingenuous.* You believe it to me tantamount to murder, but that doesn’t make it murder. Your taxes aren’t inflated a great deal by the cost of the abortions. It’s no more objectionable than people who choose to pump their bodies full of McDonalds, cigarettes and lager then claim incapacity benefits and get expensive treatment on the NHS. It just so happens that those fit in more with your bronze age moral code.
As in: you’re saying x = y when x demonstrably = x.
Plus the fact, if they weren’t ‘free’ (money-wise) then it just might mean fewer of them. Or is that a problem for you as well?
I believe women should have the option to terminate unwanted pregnancies if they choose to before a specific cut-off, as agreed by law. People who do not wish to bear the burden of a child with disability shouldn’t have to. People who don’t want to sire the children of rapists shouldn’t have to. And they don’t have to, because Britain is a nation of rational thinkers who don’t let bronze age tribalism interfere with law
“Out of interest, which way do you vote Stewart? I’ll be up front and say I’m a pro-hunting, pro-Europe Tory.”
I voted UKIP last time for the simple reason that getting out the EU is about as urgent as it gets. The Lib/Lab/Con Party will betray us.
Ah, UKIP. I’ve met Nigel on a number of occasions, he’s at least got a bit of a sense of humour about himself. I took him to task about an astonishingly asinine remark he made in a debate, to which he replied “Well, you know what they say. If you have the facts on your side, pound the facts. If you have the law on your side pound the law. If you have neither on your side, pound the table.”
A pretty good summary of UKIP and its relentless cainophobia.
Mr Spencer,
In your previous post, you said:
‘Save it for speaker’s corner.’ – When you can’t prove the argument wrong, why not attack the man?
‘And you believe that god and the heavenly host stood idly by whilst for the first 97,000 years on earth early human civilisation destroyed each other, died of appendicitis and poor dental hygiene and then suddenly decided to intervene.’ – It shouldn’t be that difficult for you to understand’ – God with a capital ‘G’ has never stood idly by. Man is still brutal to man, he is not 97,000 yrs old, people still die of these things today, I have never claimed to believe any of your straw-men. Your position is really not much of an argument about anything, let alone against the existence of God.
‘Furthermore your point doesn’t diminish the credibility of my point. He was a mass murderer. He was removed. War justified.’ – Bush, Obama, Blair (especially Blair), Brown, Merckel, Barosso, et al, are responsible for the deaths of literally hundreds of thousands of civilians, let alone soldiers. Can The Honduras, or Nicaragua, Argentina or The Shetland Isles justify a strike on New York, London, or Berlin, or Rome for the same reasons? Would you fight if they did? I would not wish to be in a trench with you sir, should such a thing happen.
‘He became undesirable when he started committing genocide. It’s possible to justify wars.’ – He killed between 7-10,000 Kurds in March 1988. Vile, but hardly genocide (unless you are still using your dodgy dictionary). He was invaded by ‘Coalition Forces’ in Aug 1990. Don’t paint the US anxiety over oil as a response from ‘The Righteous’, when it was little more than a concern for an oil supply. If Bush Snr. had wanted to remove a despot from power, he would have had his troops march on Baghdad, but he didn’t because the oil was already safe. He would have had them invade 2 full years earlier, but he didn’t because he was not motivated to stop a genocide. If the US sought to remove murderous tyrants from power, why no attacks on N. Korea, Cuba, Russia, Burma, China, Cambodia, et al? Please don’t try the usual get out of ‘an attack on China or Russia would be suicide’, because an attack on Burma would not be, in fact it is a far easier target than Iraq. BTW, The 10’s of thousands (possibly, only possibly) that died as a result of Saddam’s insanity in Iraq pales into insignificance when compared to the slaughter currently going on there. Red Cross (ahh, you don’t like the cross, do you?) figures indicate well over 100,000 people dead as a direct result of US imperialism. Not really an improvement, is it?
The rest of your rant appears to deal with the points made by another poster, certainly not by me. That your self-righteous rage blinded you to this fact is yet more evidence of the failings in your argument. I could respond to your vacuous arguments in this section, but what is the point? You have already sarcastically implied that I am ill-educated, I doubt you will take correction from such as me.
In summary, you appear to me to be a person who has misspent his education, an obviously intelligent man who uses his intelligence for devious means. That there are no letters after my name will not prevent me from highlighting your mendacity.
Finally, you accuse me of what I consider a grave error, namely voting UKIP. I have never voted for them, nor can I envisage a time that I shall.
PS Abortion is murder, sex changes are sick, people who falsely demonstrate the illogicality of a person’s argument with ‘dog-rough’ algebra deserve the contempt they receive. Spouting twaddle will not prove your point.
I don’t believe for a second that Saddam was brought down because he was a ‘nasty man’. As EV says, his brutality was somehow not such a problem when he was seen as a ‘bulwark’ against the Iranian Islamic Republic. Do you know, I think this has happened before. I think there was a government in Germany, prone to dubious methods, some time in the past which was seen, for a time, as a ‘bulwark’ against another menace to the east. I think Saddam was brought down because he once implied he had nasty plans for Dubya’s daddy.
‘It’s no more objectionable than people who choose to pump their bodies full of McDonalds, cigarettes and lager then claim incapacity benefits and get expensive treatment on the NHS’.
No? I could be persuaded about the hamburgers perhaps but smoking alcoholics pay more in tax on their humble pleasures than they cost. They also check out early, saving a huge burden on the pension system. True, they do murder people sometimes but it’s usually unpremeditated and they certainly don’t get paid for it.
‘It’s not murder. Legally, it isn’t murder. They aren’t human, they’re human foetuses.’
It’s legally not been murder to murder many, many people throughout history. So, it wasn’t murder then when Stalin, Hitler, Vlad the Impaler, etc. did what they did. After all, they WERE the law.
‘They aren’t human’ makes me wonder how human somebody is who can say that.
Mr Baxter,
Your stock just jumped several points with me.
‘Save it for speaker’s corner.’ – When you can’t prove the argument wrong, why not attack the man?
Oops, you’ve fallen neatly into my little logic trap, like the true fundie you are
Would you care to tell me what there was to disprove about your rant? What can be disproved about such a rant? There was nothing empirical or factual in it. It doesn’t make it right.
Criminals masquerading as leaders? I am unaware of any convicted criminals who hold office in the EU. An impending war more “catastrophic” than anything we’ve seen before (so, totalling casualties in excess of 40 million then)? There’s no reason to suspect that we are near war.
Let me fill in the blanks for you: your comments were the ramblings of someone suffering from paranoia. If you genuinely believe what you said could be in some way disproved, then you’re welcome to keep believing it. I will vouch for your sectioning
I object to you suggesting that if I can’t better an argument I simply attack the person. You didn’t put forth an argument. There was nothing rational or reasonable about it. That is what I was skewering.
‘And you believe that god and the heavenly host stood idly by whilst for the first 97,000 years on earth early human civilisation destroyed each other, died of appendicitis and poor dental hygiene and then suddenly decided to intervene.’ – It shouldn’t be that difficult for you to understand’ – God with a capital ‘G’ has never stood idly by.
What were they doing for the 97,000 years of human life that predate the events of the Old Testament? Planning? Sorry, but your beliefs are laughable
Man is still brutal to man, he is not 97,000 yrs old,
I genuinely don’t know what to say to that. Scientific evidence from every field: palaeontology, archeology, biology, chemistry, physics (both astronomic and atomic) indicates that the earth has been here for billions of years, and that man has been here for at least 100,000. Richard Dawkins says 250,000 years, Francis Bacon WHO BELIEVES IN THE SAME GOD YOU DO, AND I WOULD CONJECTURE IS A GREAT DEAL MORE INTELLIGENT (AND NOT TO MENTION WIDELY READ IN THE MATTER*), says man has been on the earth for 100,000 years. That’s the low-end estimate.
Again: you are entitled to your own religious beliefs. You are not entitled to your own scientific facts. You are not a scientist. You are not even a terribly logical thinker. You cannot provide evidence that counters the vast amounts of evidence that indicate we have been here for at least a hundred millennia. You really need to start living in this world. It’s tragic to see people so helplessly indoctrinated that they will make such outrageous, indefensible claims.
*Capitals to help you understand something very important, not to seem like I’m shouting.
people still die of these things today, I have never claimed to believe any of your straw-men.
Sorry, straw man? It is a fact that humans have been on this earth for at least 100,000 years. It is a fact that around 1700 years ago The Bible was written. The Bible indicates that around 1300 years prior to that, God first appeared to man (and he chose the Middle East! Of course! Not the Chinese, who were already reading by this point in history.) You therefore believe that for 97,000 years heaven did not intervene to help man.
I’m sorry if you are either too conceited, too indoctrinated or too stupid to comprehend scientific fact. I applaud you for not simply accepting but challenging things, but your challenges are and will be time and time again refuted comprehensively. You do not have a leg to stand on in this matter. Humans have been on this earth for hundreds of thousands of years. If you believe in god, you therefore believe that he did nothing for 97,000 years. Account for it.
Your position is really not much of an argument about anything, let alone against the existence of God.
I’m not arguing anything where I say that. I’m showing you what you have to believe if you believe in the petty god you choose to believe in (I wonder, too, if you were raised a Christian? Certainly raised in a predominantly Christian country. Interesting. I suspect had you been born in Iran you would be a Muslim…)
‘Furthermore your point doesn’t diminish the credibility of my point. He was a mass murderer. He was removed. War justified.’ – Bush, Obama, Blair (especially Blair), Brown, Merckel, Barosso, et al, are responsible for the deaths of literally hundreds of thousands of civilians, let alone soldiers.
No. Our army is not run by conscription, it is a volunteer army. One of the risks you take when you join the army is that you might die. Nobody was sent to death. You could say that they were poorly equipped, but that’s not your point.
Furthermore the numbers don’t even begin to add up. Human Rights Watch suggest that to say 100,000 have died in Iraq is “something of a reach.” There’s no doubt that civilians have died, but that’s unavoidable in war unfortunately.
Can The Honduras, or Nicaragua, Argentina or The Shetland Isles justify a strike on New York, London, or Berlin, or Rome for the same reasons? Would you fight if they did? I would not wish to be in a trench with you sir, should such a thing happen.
You cannot justify terrorism. War is not terrorism. Again you seem to believe the army is a conscription force. It isn’t.
‘He became undesirable when he started committing genocide. It’s possible to justify wars.’ – He killed between 7-10,000 Kurds in March 1988. Vile, but hardly genocide (unless you are still using your dodgy dictionary).
Saddam Hussein was found guilty of committing genocide in 1982 (http://www.news24.com/Content/World/Archives/IraqiDossier/1072/db96823eec30468294af76950d1a4d6e/23-12-2005-04-38/Saddam_guilty_of_genocide). You are hilariously detached from reality
You say that abortion is murder: it isn’t, by definition. You say that humans haven’t been here for hundreds of thousands of years. They have, it’s been scientifically proven. You say that Saddam Hussein didn’t commit genocide. He did, he was found guilty of it.
Do you begin to see why people have trouble taking you seriously and label you things like moron? You have such little self-awareness. You believe you have an answer, which you don’t (speaking as a reformed Creationist), and you’re just peddling the same old exceptionalism. If it was a choice between going to heaven myself or seeing your face should one of the other 20,000 or so gods turn out to be real, I’d pick the latter
Pity it won’t ever happen.
He was invaded by ‘Coalition Forces’ in Aug 1990. Don’t paint the US anxiety over oil as a response from ‘The Righteous’, when it was little more than a concern for an oil supply. If Bush Snr. had wanted to remove a despot from power, he would have had his troops march on Baghdad, but he didn’t because the oil was already safe.
I’m not arguing over that. I’m saying that Saddam Hussein was removed from power, and that justifies the war on a moral basis.
He would have had them invade 2 full years earlier, but he didn’t because he was not motivated to stop a genocide. If the US sought to remove murderous tyrants from power, why no attacks on N. Korea, Cuba, Russia, Burma, China, Cambodia, et al? Please don’t try the usual get out of ‘an attack on China or Russia would be suicide’, because an attack on Burma would not be, in fact it is a far easier target than Iraq. BTW, The 10’s of thousands (possibly, only possibly) that died as a result of Saddam’s insanity in Iraq pales into insignificance when compared to the slaughter currently going on there.
I dread to ask this, but would you dispute the figures of the holocaust? Saddam Hussein killed a known 500,000 people in Iraq. There may be more but he buried and incinerated bodies. I’m incredulous as to how you can be so removed from reality.
Red Cross (ahh, you don’t like the cross, do you?) figures indicate well over 100,000 people dead as a direct result of US imperialism. Not really an improvement, is it?
Actually it is.
The rest of your rant appears to deal with the points made by another poster, certainly not by me.
Yep. That was directed at Stewart. I didn’t insinuate that you were making those points, I just felt Stewart was probably capable of seeing where his answers started.
That your self-righteous rage blinded you to this fact is yet more evidence of the failings in your argument.
Hahahahahaha. Yes, I often find that a semantic misunderstanding can be seen as evidence of an argument failing. My goodness you’re a dullard.
I could respond to your vacuous arguments in this section, but what is the point? You have already sarcastically implied that I am ill-educated, I doubt you will take correction from such as me.
You are demonstrably ill-educated if you indulge in the fairy tale that the human race hasn’t been here for 100,000 years. Sorry.
In summary, you appear to me to be a person who has misspent his education, an obviously intelligent man who uses his intelligence for devious means. That there are no letters after my name will not prevent me from highlighting your mendacity.
I’m by all accounts a remarkably intelligent man. I did misspend some years of my education, but not enough to wallow in the sort of critical negligence that you do.
The beauty of this situation is that you can’t provide any proof to say that the human race hasn’t been here for hundreds of thousands of years, because that’s the truth
All the evidence is on my side. I’d love to you quickly Google the discovery institute’s website and try, though 
Finally, you accuse me of what I consider a grave error, namely voting UKIP. I have never voted for them, nor can I envisage a time that I shall.
Again you’re misunderstanding: I was replying to Stewart, not to you. I would never make anything other than playfully disparaging comments about other people’s political beliefs because they are matters of opinion. I hope you can see that I am taking you to task where fact contradicts what your personal ‘truth’. Stewart probably thinks I’m an idiot for voting Tory and that’s fine, everyone is entitled to their opinions on politics. As I have continually stressed, people are not entitled to their own scientific facts, and that’s what you seem to believe. I do however apologise if it seemed that I was insinuating you would vote UKIP. I hope I’ve made it clear that this was never my intention.
PS Abortion is murder,
Again, demonstrably it isn’t. You cannot say that it is if you want to be seen as rational. I’m not quibbling the morality of it (although I don’t believe in forcing people to have unwanted pregnancies; that seems barbaric), I’m saying that abortion is not murder. As in, you could say that you think it’s tantamount to murder, or that it should be reclassified as an act of murder, but as things currently stand, it is NOT murder. I’m sorry that you’re so far from reality that you can’t see that.
sex changes are sick,
HOORAY! At last an opinion not masquerading as fact (too much!) You’re entitled to one of these!
people who falsely demonstrate the illogicality of a person’s argument with ‘dog-rough’ algebra deserve the contempt they receive. Spouting twaddle will not prove your point.
Actually it does prove my point
Abortion is not classified as murder under the law. So let’s say abortion is value X and murder is value Y. The law says that X != Y you’re saying that X = Y. Unfortunately for you, X != Y 
English,
Many thanks. I very much appreciate that comment although, really, I should chide you for not having noticed before that I, like you and Stewart, belong among the good guys, despite our differences on… ‘philosophical’… matters.
You can recognise the good guys very easily. They have a sense of humour. So few of Stewart’s legion of detractors, all four of them, do.
Oh, and that’s DOCTOR Baxter to you, you letterless old git.
Jim,
I don’t believe for a second that Saddam was brought down because he was a ‘nasty man’. As EV says, his brutality was somehow not such a problem when he was seen as a ‘bulwark’ against the Iranian Islamic Republic.
Either you have misunderstood or I haven’t been clear enough. I have never argued that he was brought down BECAUSE he a mass murderer, but that the fact that he was justified the war on moral grounds. It’s a matter of opinion, so nobody can be wrong. Relax
Do you know, I think this has happened before. I think there was a government in Germany, prone to dubious methods, some time in the past which was seen, for a time, as a ‘bulwark’ against another menace to the east. I think Saddam was brought down because he once implied he had nasty plans for Dubya’s daddy.
I think that’s less likely than the oil explanation and the WMD explanation. I’m not convinced that even George W. Bush would go to war over that–for one thing there’s not much evidence to suggest that he had the necessary power (the puppeteers behind his throne might have thrown it his way as a justification, though.)
‘It’s no more objectionable than people who choose to pump their bodies full of McDonalds, cigarettes and lager then claim incapacity benefits and get expensive treatment on the NHS’.
No? I could be persuaded about the hamburgers perhaps but smoking alcoholics pay more in tax on their humble pleasures than they cost. They also check out early, saving a huge burden on the pension system. True, they do murder people sometimes but it’s usually unpremeditated and they certainly don’t get paid for it.
The tax doesn’t outweigh the cost. In direct terms it may appear that way, but it only works if you have an undersubscribed or sustainable health system. Ours is bursting at the seams and only getting busier. I believe people should be means-vetted for almost everything (which I know will mortify Stewart), including healthcare. If you aren’t taking care of your body, then we aren’t going to take care of it for you.
‘It’s not murder. Legally, it isn’t murder. They aren’t human, they’re human foetuses.’
It’s legally not been murder to murder many, many people throughout history. So, it wasn’t murder then when Stalin, Hitler, Vlad the Impaler, etc. did what they did. After all, they WERE the law.
(I won’t invoke Godwin’s law since you’re not a dullard and don’t deserve to be treated like one *looks pointedly at English Viking*)
And when Hitler, Stalin, Vlad the Impaler killed foetuses that were less than 28 weeks old, they weren’t murdering them. They have no feelings, no cognitive activity and have barely developed arms and legs. That’s the cut-off. It’s not murder because they aren’t human. They’re human foetuses.
‘They aren’t human’ makes me wonder how human somebody is who can say that.
I think you’re misrepresenting what I said: I said they weren’t humans, they were human foetuses. There’s a difference. How human(e) is someone who would have a rape victim live with the seed of her attacker?
Swings and roundabouts. Long story short: the people have spoken. Abortion law reflects the views of the population. If you disagree, you’re entitled to your vote! But unfortunately you have to be prepared to accept that your views are in the minority for a reason.
George,
If I may be so familiar. Don’t you ever sleep? (Feeble attempt to deflect suggestion that I never do).
I contend that the tax outweighs the cost by a factor of three, at least.
Dubya is on record as saying he was going to ‘get’ that man who ‘tried to kill my daddy’. I quite believe, therefore, that the entire operation was based on a presidential order based on that vow. 11/9/2001 had given him the pretext. Blair went along because he wanted to maintain good relations with the Americans who could offer him great support for his ambitions, especially his financial ambitions. And who would gainsay them in retrospect? Saddam was a foul man, so unlike many leaders in other countries that we might have chosen to overthrow. ot all British laeaders have caved in so readily to American policy. Harold wilson was more afraid of his own party than he was of Lyndon Johnson and kept us out of Vietnam.
I wouldn’t wish a rape victim to be compelled to bear the child of her attacker, or for a mother to bear to term a child who may be painfully deformed and suffer greatly after being born. But – how many abortions are based on those contingencies? A tiny minority. The vast majority are conducted as post hoc contraception and that is a crime against human decency.
Thanks for not hitting me with Godwin’s law.
If I may be so familiar. Don’t you ever sleep? (Feeble attempt to deflect suggestion that I never do).
Ah, I’m on the Blair diet. Five hours a night is fine for me
I contend that the tax outweighs the cost by a factor of three, at least.
I’m not sure we could ever prove it either way, but it would be interesting to see. You can’t really ever quantify, say, someone who smokes having a heart transplant whilst someone who doesn’t having to be on a waiting list. That’s the real cost, in my opinion.
Dubya is on record as saying he was going to ‘get’ that man who ‘tried to kill my daddy’. I quite believe, therefore, that the entire operation was based on a presidential order based on that vow.
Oh come on. You’re a very intelligent man, you can’t genuinely believe that was the basis for an entire operation. In much the same way as you couldn’t believe that, say, Ryan Giggs wanted to beat John Terry as an individual in the football on Sunday: it’s a happy byproduct of a bigger picture.
11/9/2001 had given him the pretext.
Undoubtedly.
Blair went along because he wanted to maintain good relations with the Americans who could offer him great support for his ambitions, especially his financial ambitions.
Perhaps. I also think Blair thought, as I do, that the victory of removing Saddam was an ends unto itself.
And who would gainsay them in retrospect? Saddam was a foul man, so unlike many leaders in other countries that we might have chosen to overthrow.
I concede that there are others who are similarly objectionable. I actually don’t believe we should tolerate the Chinese record on human rights / towards Tibet / et cetera as we do. I am in favour of fighting a losing war rather than standing idly by (as you can perhaps see from my attempts to dissuade Viking Englishman from believing that the earth was created by a fairy 12,000 years ago.) But I can’t help justify the nations we aren’t invading. I can only justify what we have done.
ot all British laeaders have caved in so readily to American policy. Harold wilson was more afraid of his own party than he was of Lyndon Johnson and kept us out of Vietnam.
Agreed, wholeheartedly.
I wouldn’t wish a rape victim to be compelled to bear the child of her attacker, or for a mother to bear to term a child who may be painfully deformed and suffer greatly after being born.
This has genuinely made my day, and I mean that sincerely (and retrospectively: it’s now 2am.) Someone rises above the miserabile vulgus at last.
But – how many abortions are based on those contingencies? A tiny minority
To the logical extension of your point, you then have the problem of women who fall pregnant saying that they were raped in order to ‘receive’ (feels like the wrong word) abortions.
I actually don’t agree with you that the minority of abortions are as a result of great suffering. Look at teenage mothers, struggling to bring up children on the poverty line. They have so many problems beyond the genetic. The fact is that you have to be ready and committed to the notion of having children to raise them successfully. I think we both agree on that. I would contest that this is therefore grounds to allow mothers who unfortunately fall pregnant to exercise their freedom of choice to abort the foetus before it reaches a stage where it would have any awareness of the matter.
The vast majority are conducted as post hoc contraception and that is a crime against human decency.
I don’t know what the numbers are so I can’t comment. I think there is a big place for sterner sexual education, and greater instilling of responsibility in children. I also believe that we simply must remove the incentives childrearing currently holds for the youngsters in this country. However accidents happen in good faith, and I don’t believe frightened 18 year old girl’s who have made a boozy mistake should be forced to pay with the next 18 years of their lives. A close acquaintance of mine terminated a pregnancy recently, and I can assure you that the effect it had on her was absolutely life changing. I have never seen such a dramatic or welcome turnaround in someone’s attitude towards sex. By which I mean that I object to the impression some give (not you) that women will use abortions just like the morning after pill. This isn’t true.
I’m always interested to hear answers to the following, as it happens:
1. If you believe abortion to be murder (and I don’t believe you’ve said that you do, so maybe this is best answered by English Viking), what do you believe the punishment should be for people who have abortions?
2. Do you believe the morning after pill to be an abortion of sorts?
Thanks for not hitting me with Godwin’s law.
Haha, any time
Thanks for not grammar-policing me, I saw a few mistakes in my hastily written response!
‘Dubya is on record as saying he was going to ‘get’ that man who ‘tried to kill my daddy’. I quite believe, therefore, that the entire operation was based on a presidential order based on that vow.
Oh come on. You’re a very intelligent man, you can’t genuinely believe that was the basis for an entire operation. In much the same way as you couldn’t believe that, say, Ryan Giggs wanted to beat John Terry as an individual in the football on Sunday: it’s a happy byproduct of a bigger picture.’
How do you do that thing with the Italics btw? Oh, it’s no use. I am getting too old for this – it’s a younger person’s game.
Thank you for ‘very intelligent’. Unfortunately I am not as intelligent as I look and, were you to see how I look, you would realise how multiply compounded my misfortune is. I am a semi-living testament to the power of the forces of progressive disorder (Stewart, please hurry up and read that mad book).
Where was I? See? See the problem? Right there.
Oh yes, put an emotionally and intellectually retarded man in charge of a mighty military machine in a time of national fear, uncertainty, deep wounds and deep anger, and watch what happens. Indeed, I can think of another time when such an adverse conjunction occurred… OK, I’ll save it.
If you put the letters em inside right-angled brackets at the started of the text you wish to emphasise and then /em in the same brackets at the end, it’ll end the emphasis.
Thanks. I see the words but I’m none the wiser. What passes for my brain become immune to new information some years ago. It’s not so bad. I only need one DVD to keep me amused.
George,
You said:
Sorry, straw man? It is a fact that humans have been on this earth for at least 100,000 years. It is a fact that around 1700 years ago The Bible was written. The Bible indicates that around 1300 years prior to that, God first appeared to man (and he chose the Middle East! Of course! Not the Chinese, who were already reading by this point in history.) You therefore believe that for 97,000 years heaven did not intervene to help man.
Our survey said:
Uh Uhhhh!
If you refer to the calendar (I assume you use the Gregorian) you will find the year stated as 2009 Anno Domini. The year of Our Lord. It is a very close approximation that Jesus was born 2009 years ago. The latest parts of the New Testament were written in AD 90, by John. The earlist parts were written in AD45. Parts of the Old Testament were written in 1450 BC, making them almost 3500 years old. God appeared to Adam approximately 4000 years BC, not 1000 BC as you seem to think. The Bible was not written 1700 years ago, and that’s a fact.
You said:
I’m saying that Saddam Hussein was removed from power, and that justifies the war on a moral basis.
You have a strange understanding of morality (that dodgy dictionary again) if you think it moral that nations can be deceived into attacking another nation based on a deliberate lie, that being the existence and intended imminent use of WMD. You seem to think that it is acceptable to depose a murderer by using murder, to save those oppressed by Saddam by carpet-bombing them. The death-toll figure you give for his reign include the casualties of the Iran-Iraq war, a war sponsored by the US. As you appear such a fan of war, surely Saddam was simply trying to depose a dictatorship in Iran, to free the oppressed?
You did well to resist the Godwin thing with Dr Baxter, but you couldn’t quite maintain it with me. The exact figure mercilessly slaughtered in the name of Socialism in Nazi death camps is unknown, for obvious reasons. I would unscientifically estimate it to be around 6 million, although I am open to correction should the awful number be higher. As you seem to think that plucking unborn babies from their mother’s wombs and amputating limbs until they bleed to death is not murder, because the law says it’s OK, would a letter from Hitler have been sufficient to calm any fears you may have had about burning Jewish babies? There’s that hypocrisy thing again George.
The rest of your post is very long and tedious. I do not wish to convince you of this or that, merely to state my opinions which I believe are rooted in fact. The age of the Earth is irrelevant when considering the age of Man, when viewed from a creationist standpoint. The fact that so called ‘eminent’ men believe otherwise is also irrelevant. You have no proof, no cast iron (Tories don’t like anything cast iron, do they?) fact, you have opinion, based on some very incomplete science. You exercise faith to fill in the gaps. I do exactly the same, but I am not foolish enough to call this ’science’, it is religion, and you are a follower of your own religion, the cult of Science and Intellect. I’ll stick with Christ.
In reply to your question on the punishment of those undergoing abortions, the punishment is death. It is a punishment we all will suffer, sooner or later, for the wages of sin is death and we are all terrible sinners. The punishment is to be carried out by God, not his followers. Those who repent of their sins, including all murderers of whatever description, shall be freed of the eternal consequences of their sins. I do not advocate punishing people for this particular sin, I hope for the day when the opportunity for this sin to be performed is no longer available.
Invoking Godwin is hardly proof of a vast intellect, nor is voting Tory. Perhaps I’ve over-estimated you.
Sorry, straw man? It is a fact that humans have been on this earth for at least 100,000 years. It is a fact that around 1700 years ago The Bible was written. The Bible indicates that around 1300 years prior to that, God first appeared to man (and he chose the Middle East! Of course! Not the Chinese, who were already reading by this point in history.) You therefore believe that for 97,000 years heaven did not intervene to help man.
Our survey said:
Uh Uhhhh!
If you refer to the calendar (I assume you use the Gregorian) you will find the year stated as 2009 Anno Domini. The year of Our Lord. It is a very close approximation that Jesus was born 2009 years ago. The latest parts of the New Testament were written in AD 90, by John. The earlist parts were written in AD45. Parts of the Old Testament were written in 1450 BC, making them almost 3500 years old. God appeared to Adam approximately 4000 years BC, not 1000 BC as you seem to think. The Bible was not written 1700 years ago, and that’s a fact.
The New Testament was written in between 100-300 AD. I was out by 9 years
I’m saying that Saddam Hussein was removed from power, and that justifies the war on a moral basis.
You have a strange understanding of morality (that dodgy dictionary again) if you think it moral that nations can be deceived into attacking another nation based on a deliberate lie, that being the existence and intended imminent use of WMD.
Yes. I believe we should do whatever is necessary to remove megalomaniacs who commit genocide from power. Interesting to note that my ‘dodgy dictionary’ is the one that appears to be used by the hague. It might not be the one you use to write your “THE END IS NIGH’ sandwich board, but it works for the rest of us
You seem to think that it is acceptable to depose a murderer by using murder,
Sorry to sound like a broken record, but it’s not murder. There is no intent to kill civilians. Your vernacular is extraordinarily suspect (not to mention partisan.) Murder is the unlawful, specifically premeditated, killing of another human. Civilian losses in war are foreseen but not premeditated. Neither are they unlawful.
to save those oppressed by Saddam by carpet-bombing them. The death-toll figure you give for his reign include the casualties of the Iran-Iraq war, a war sponsored by the US.
Actually no it doesn’t: http://www.thefirstpost.co.uk/4751,news-comment,news-politics,saddam-era-the-death
As you appear such a fan of war,
An hilarious statement coming from a fundamentalist Christian.
surely Saddam was simply trying to depose a dictatorship in Iran, to free the oppressed?
I’m not arguing over the Iran war. I’m saying that he killed at least 100,000 kurds between 87-89, the same number AGAIN in 1991 and more than 100,000 shias too.
Your defence of Saddam is utterly pathetic.
You did well to resist the Godwin thing with Dr Baxter, but you couldn’t quite maintain it with me.
Because Jim isn’t prone to the same sensationalist indignation that you are. He’s able to argue coherently and recognise the validity of points. He recognises the difference between fact and opinion. You muddle the two with an alarming frequency. The only commonality between your posts in this discussion has been your self-righteousness. There is no coherent structure to your argument.
The exact figure mercilessly slaughtered in the name of Socialism in Nazi death camps is unknown, for obvious reasons.
I don’t think they were slaughtered in the name of socialism, but do continue.
I would unscientifically estimate it to be around 6 million, although I am open to correction should the awful number be higher.
The most accurate estimates (using jewish population surveys before and after the war) put it at around 5.8 million.
The point I was trying to make was that denying genocide is a disgraceful thing to do. I’m delighted that you don’t deny the holocaust as well.
As you seem to think that plucking unborn babies from their mother’s wombs and amputating limbs until they bleed to death is not murder
Um, abortion isn’t murder. We’ve already shown that to be true.
because the law says it’s OK,
More importantly because people want the law to reflect their feelings on the matter. David Steel, who suggested the abortion act in 1967, was incidentally a member of the church of scotland.
would a letter from Hitler have been sufficient to calm any fears you may have had about burning Jewish babies?
I’m not sure if you understand abortion. I’ll add this to the lengthy list of your detachments from reality (I note with interest that you haven’t been able to respond to the demonstrated facts that Saddam committed genocide, or that humans have been here for 100,000 years, or that abortion is not murder.)
The premeditated killing of a baby is murder, no matter who does it. The premeditated destruction (can’t be killing if it’s not sentient) of an embryo is not murder. There is a distinction which you would do well to heed.
There’s that hypocrisy thing again George.
Disproof by counter-example.
The rest of your post is very long and tedious.
Ah! The dullards motto in the face of empiricism.
I do not wish to convince you of this or that, merely to state my opinions which I believe are rooted in fact.
That’s an alarming statement. Your beliefs are rooted in fact. I don’t have beliefs. I have facts.
The age of the Earth is irrelevant when considering the age of Man, when viewed from a creationist standpoint.
That’s not true. The Bible points to an earth created 12,000 years ago. This isn’t true. If The Bible is wrong about that, what else might it be wrong about?
The fact that so called ‘eminent’ men believe otherwise is also irrelevant. You have no proof, no cast iron (Tories don’t like anything cast iron, do they?) fact, you have opinion, based on some very incomplete science.
You may not make disparaging remarks about the scientific evidence for an old earth. For one thing you don’t understand the evidence. You probably haven’t even read it. You don’t understand the scientific methodology involved. You don’t appear to even have an O-Level understanding of the basics.
I do have absolute, empirical, cast iron fact. That’s the thing. If you’d like I can share it with you.
I’d also like to point out that even if it was just ‘faith’ in ’science’, that would be a hell of a lot better than faith in a book written thousands of years ago after being handed down through oral tradition by illiterate bronze age tribesmen.
You exercise faith to fill in the gaps.
No I don’t. Sorry but this is wrong as well.
I do exactly the same, but I am not foolish enough to call this ’science’, it is religion, and you are a follower of your own religion, the cult of Science and Intellect.
Hahahaha. This is like a mother telling the fat girl at school that she’s just as beautiful as the cheerleaders. “the cult of intellect” What nonsense. I don’t have faith in science in the same way as you have faith in religion. For one thing science has a demonstrable effect. It is observable and testable. Your own god introduces several interesting caveats in his holy book to make sure that none of his followers can ever see if he exists or not.
I’ll stick with Christ.
You’re welcome to him. I note that you haven’t responded to the points in another post suggesting that he didn’t die on the cross. Only up for a few hours. Bit of a wimp, was he, your Christ? Roman executions usually took days…
In reply to your question on the punishment of those undergoing abortions, the punishment is death. It is a punishment we all will suffer, sooner or later, for the wages of sin is death and we are all terrible sinners. The punishment is to be carried out by God, not his followers.
Right so let me get this straight. You believe that:
1. Abortion is murder in the same way as me taking a gun and shooting you now would be murder (I rather think they’d name a national holiday after me, but I digress.)
2. You believe that the punishment for said murder should be… nothing. You believe god will take care of it.
I wonder why you don’t believe the same lack of punitive measures should be forced upon people who do their ‘murdering’ with guns and knives in the streets.
Those who repent of their sins, including all murderers of whatever description, shall be freed of the eternal consequences of their sins.
Not according to Zeus, who is just as valid as your god. This is why gods aren’t a good basis for morality. Well, one of the reasons. The parts of the bible where your got commits genocide are another.
I do not advocate punishing people for this particular sin, I hope for the day when the opportunity for this sin to be performed is no longer available.
That’s very noble. I will take you up on that by literally burying you beneath the weight of scientific fact. Then I’ll repent.
Invoking Godwin is hardly proof of a vast intellect,
I didn’t invoke Godwin anywhere.
nor is voting Tory.
The Tory party happens to be one of the better educated parties, looking at the statistics on where they went to school and university and how well they did.
Perhaps I’ve over-estimated you.
23 Then he went up from there to Bethel; and as he was going up by the way, young lads came out from the city and mocked him and said to him, “Go up, you baldhead; go up, you baldhead!” 24 When he looked behind him and saw them, he cursed them in the name of the LORD. Then two female bears came out of the woods and tore up forty-two lads of their number. 25 And he went from there to Mount Carmel, and from there he returned to Samaria.
And you wish to worship that god. You should try sadomasochistic sex, you’d be right at home.
George,
You appear to have moved from trying to appear clever to simply being insulting.
The dates I gave for the writing of the Bible are entirely correct, yours are entirely wrong, out by thousands of years. You conflate the writing of the books with the compilation of the Canon. An understandable mistake given that you appear to know nothing about the Bible, other than the parts which you crib from atheist web-sites to attempt to prove your prejudice.
I do not defend Saddam, your attempt to make it seem as if I do is pathetic. I oppose the war in Iraq (and Afghanistan) on the grounds that they are totally unnecessary for this nation’s safety, and we are not the world’s policeman. They were justified by deliberately fabricated lies and have resulted in the deaths of many thousands of civilians. I think it can be demonstrated that the use of carpet bombing, Cruise missiles, JDAMS, Bunker Busters, phosphor and uranium munitions in civilian areas is certainly going to lead to the death of innocents, therefore their deaths are pre-meditated. The law of murder also allows for the possibility that a person (or State) may behave with such reckless and dangerous disregard for the safety of others that this person (or State) could have reasonably foreseen their actions would have resulted in a loss of life and therefore the crime of murder is committed. Target shooting in a children’s playground or speeding a car through a shopping mall, high on crack, for example. Please don’t try to call this legal, or even manslaughter, because it isn’t and the Law does not consider it so.
The Nazis were Socialists, the clue is in the name, as in National Socialists. Doh!
You claim that ‘we’ have proved that abortion isn’t murder, when ‘we’ have done nothing of the sort. Killing babies is murder. If I were to knife a pregnant lady and cause the death of the unborn, that is murder. That you attribute new meanings to words will not undo their original meaning, that the Gov have decreed murder not to be murder, just like Hitler did, does not make it right. You didn’t answer my point, which was-was it right for the legally constituted Gov officials of the Third Reich to do what they did because the law said it was OK, bearing in mind that they also wrote that law? If you are going to be consistent in your argument, you will have to answer ‘Yes, perfectly legal’, and then I will have to refer you to Mr Godwin.
You explain why you invoke Godwin (because I’m sensationally indignant) and then later claim you didn’t invoke Godwin. Well, you seem confused, make your mind up.
You don’t know what I believe on the punishment of serious criminals
:) you just tell me what you think I believe and then ridicule me for it. 6th form stuff.
Insulting Christ is a dangerous thing to do. I know God to be merciful and slow to anger, but it really is a dangerous habit. I didn’t bother rebutting your lies about the Bible not claiming that Christ died, or that He was not dead when He was taken from the cross, mainly because they are palpable nonsense. You are entitled to your opinions, your safety blanket, the vain hope that I am wrong and God will not judge you for your words and deeds. That nagging voice in the back of head tells you that He will indeed judge, but you quieten it with ‘reason’.
Zeus is only as valid as ‘my God’ if he has the same power and authority. The same goes for the other ‘gods’. That they do not is why your comparison fails.
You claim your fantasies on evolution are testable, observable, scientifically repeatable by experiment. That they are none of these things is why the debate on T of E continues. You can never recreate the circumstances surrounding the ‘Big Bang’, because you don’t know what they were, because there is no proof of such a thing, cast-iron or otherwise. As I said, you call your faith things like ‘estimates, hypothecations and theory’ – fancy words for guessing and inventing, nothing like proof. You cannot prove to anyone that you even exist, so what hope have you of proving something that allegedly happened 13 billion years ago?
You claim the Bible cites a date of around 10,000 BC for creation. You’ve been on those atheist web-sites again, haven’t you? The Bible does not give a date for creation, the closest we can get is by calculating the genealogies of the earliest men to the present, this gives man an age of about 6000 years. The Bible also teaches that the Earth and Man were created at different times, so the age of the Earth is no indication of the age of man. You have no evidence for your claims about the Bible, seem to have difficulty understanding the difference between it’s writing and it’s compilation, consider Christianity to be a Bronze-age religion when it’s inception is closer to the Iron-age, lie about the dates of creation given and then expect me to believe you when speak of other dates you appear to have invented, like ‘man is 100,000 years old’. I don’t believe you, not least because you have such a demonstrably poor grasp of chronology. (Did we fail History as well as Algebra?)
You say I may not make disparaging comments about things I haven’t read. I have read them, and most of them are built on someone else’s theories, which in turn are built on someone else’s, etc. A house of cards. I reserve the right to make disparaging comments about whatsoever (and whomsoever) I choose, without prior reference to you.
Projecting your thoughts of sadomasochistic sex onto me does not offend me, in fact I find it amusing (although a little disturbing).
Seriously, you would do well to heed the warning contained in the scripture you quoted (cut and pasted, but let’s not quibble). Be not deceived; God is not mocked: for whatsoever a man
soweth, that shall he also reap. Galatians 6 v 7 KJV. Written by the Apostle Paul, in AD 57.
‘That they are none of these things is why the debate on T of E continues.’
I’d say it continues largely because some people believe that ancient stories told in a book explain our world and some people don’t.
‘You say I may not make disparaging comments about things I haven’t read.’
Yes, I wondered about that. Disparage away, I say, whatever you’ve read or haven’t read. We are free to ignore you, for the time being anyway.
‘That they are none of these things is why the debate on T of E continues.’
I’d say it continues largely because some people believe that ancient stories told in a book explain our world and some people don’t.
You got there before me, damnit.
‘You say I may not make disparaging comments about things I haven’t read.’
Yes, I wondered about that. Disparage away, I say, whatever you’ve read or haven’t read. We are free to ignore you, for the time being anyway.
I object to it for two reasons:
1. English Viking doesn’t extend science the same courtesy I have extended theology. I’m very well read in both areas, and if he wishes to debate then he should at least get the basic terminology correct (abiogensis vs. evolution; saying “it’s only a theory” etc.)
2. Children are naive and Christians are predators for naivety. I wouldn’t want English Viking spouting his nonsense to a vulnerable mind.
Those Italics again. Damn.
I wouldn’t want English or anybody else silenced for their opinions, or kept away from children because of them.
Who decides who is vulnerable? OK, the EU but those are the times we live in – we don’t have to like them.
English is welcome to speak to my children at anytime. It’s more than I ever do, self-satisfied sods that they are. Oh, they’re adults… allegedly… I blame the parents meself.
‘English Viking doesn’t extend science the same courtesy I have extended theology.’
Further up I thought you said something like, ‘Bit of a wimp was he, your Christ?’.
I’d have to say that is not the most respectful question I’ve ever heard, respectful either of another’s cherished beliefs or of the countless victims of man’s inhumanity.
George,
Your latest big long post was held up for moderation. There seems to be at least one word which isn’t appropriate for a family-friendly blog.
Feel free to resubmit it sans effing and jeffing.
Thank you.
George,
1. English Viking doesn’t extend science the same courtesy I have extended theology. I’m very well read in both areas, and if he wishes to debate then he should at least get the basic terminology correct (abiogensis vs. evolution; saying “it’s only a theory” etc.)
That you are not very well read on The Bible is obvious. Evolution as the explanation of the origins of man is only a theory. Using the words children, predators and my screen name in the same short paragraph is a devious trick which, fortunately, is as transparent as your refusal to condemn the slaughter of babies.
‘Evolution as the explanation of the origins of man is only a theory.’
That’s true. It’s no more or less true if you leave out the ‘only’.
The Bible is only a book. The Bible is a book.
Same principle.
Dr Baxter,
Forgive my tautology, it was to emphasise that the T of E is not a fact.
BTW The Bible is 66 books in one volume (if you’re not a Catholic).
Dear English,
You were forgiven, then you did it again.
‘The T of E is not a fact.’
Well, you know, that’s why it’s called the T of E and not the Fact of E. Quantum theory is much the same. And special and general relativity, and atomic theory, etc. Atomic theory is quite good at boiling kettles. But it’s still a theory.
Dr Baxter,
According to the rules I live by, if a repeat offender repeatedly repents, he is repeatedly forgiven. I apologise.
That atomic theory is most excellent at boiling kettles is apparent, but that evolutionary theory is not so effective in explaining life, the universe and everything is equally true.
Gotta go, kettle’s boiled.