I'm a little shocked he keeps them bunnies.
Let's be honest here, their morality is at all time low.
Father's will hump babies, brothers will hump sisters, they really don't give a flying fook who they have a piece of action with as long as their getting some.

There probably bang at it now whilst their keeper is down churchville praying for us sinners.

Tis a disgrace I tell thee.

I'd say stabbing a stranger for no logical reason fits the bill nicely.

It's an excellent general point. However, in this case the perpetrator was not previously known to mental health workers and so was not under any sort of treatment at all it seems.

Unlike Pokemon, you can't catch them all.

Ah. Hadn't caught up with that.

Just a general point on the issue of mental health issues that arise with no prior history, is there any correlation between the increased use of recreational drugs and/or alcohol and mental health ?

Its only anecdotal of course but there certainly seems to be desire amonst the young to drink to excess on a weekend far more than my generation did, the use of spirits and "pre-loading" before going out, coupled with much longer opening hours would be unheard of in my boozing days and the reported evidence of liver and kidney problems in those aged in their late twenties/early thirties would seem to corroborate that too.

I totally agree with you on your first point MB. It is exactly what I'm driving at. I honestly believe that people will get on better if we had a chance of open dialogue instead of people bagging everyone out all the time.

And yes, that is also true of those Puritans.





Again, I agree with you too. It's not automatic. having a right to have utter contempt sounds a bit strong, "not like" may have made you look at lot less aggressive.

It has been known for decades that alcohol damages the brain. This would affect all sorts of cognitive and somatic functioning. I'm guessing that it would affect individuals in different ways.

The likes of Kirkstaller aren't 'slammed' for their belief in imaginary beings, they're 'slammed' for the vile, reprehensible views they espouse as a result of their interpretation of that belief. If you can't see the difference between the two, then I'd suggest that your grounding in psychology isn't all that strong.

As for their religion being ridiculed (rather than slammed) rational people will ridicule any belief that is not only unsupported by evidence, but which actually flies in the face of all the available evidence. Religion is not exempt from this rule, and nor should it be. Do you 'respect' the views of, for example, members of the rlFlat Earth Societyrl?

With which I don't disagree.

However, in terms of the [iSin Bin[/i, the people who come out to argue from a religious perspective show no interest in that. You only need to see Kirkstaller's thread from the other day on "BBC sinks to a new low". What the BBC has apparently planned is precisely such a discussion (or the opportunity to start one), yet not only was that damned in the OP, the same post also said

But this is where you can come across as trolling – or 'taking sides'. You don't appeal to Kirkstaller to be a little less "aggressive" with their bigoted views, only to those condemning the bigotry.



These are not contradictions.



Have I called every religious believer a 'loon' – or the fundamentalists? Because if memory serves me reasonably well, I'm pretty careful to use words like 'some' and not to come out with statements such as 'all' in terms of religious believers.



As do we all within the confines of such a forum.

Probably the majority of people I know adhere to some extent to some religion or other. I respect their rights to believe what they like. I'm not rude to them about it.

On those rare occasions when a theological discussion takes place I do try to explain to them how utterly irrational beliefs in a deity are, and I must say that I find it increasingly incredible how so much of the world's population is seduced and brainwashed by such irrational beliefs. Not least that of the hundreds of religions and cults, each one would dismiss the millions who support other deities as misguided and wrong, yet vainly assume that the accident of birth (or, occasionally, adult brainwashing) that caused them to be of their particular religion happily meant they were in "the one true faith".

Why do they glibly believe that hundreds of millions around the world are misguided in their beliefs of their deity, while simultaneously being somehow able to miss the irony that it's just what they themselves do?

Anyway back to the point. I would start of any debate with all due respect and I use the word "due" literally. Kirkstaller has told me that i am Satan and that unfortunately means all politeness bets are off, he deserves no respect from me. I do believe he may however have some mental health issues principally if he actually believes he personally met Jesus by his rabbit hutch, as this would be a worrying level of delusion, and probably not a million miles from the same kind of delusions that convince people like Peter Sutcliffe (if you believe him) that his god was directing his murderous actions, or may have driven the appalling killing of this innocent schoolgirl.

Which brings me to another question or two that i think are pertinent?

1. Where was her god, and her family's god, when all this was going on, and why didn't he stop it?

2. If he couldn't, then he's not god. If he could but didn't, then he's an utter asshole who is worthy of nothing but the deepest contempt. The same contempt that I would feel for any human who had been in the perfect position to prevent the killing at no risk to themselves but chose to do nothing and let her die. Why anyone would want to "worship" and "praise" such a piece of work is the question that I can only assume all religious adherents somehow manage to fail to ask themselves.

I see you're channeling Epicurus.

"Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?"

Don't think it was him who actually said that, but whoever it was, had a point that the kirkstallers can't answer.

Epicurus didn't deny the existence of "gods" per se, IIRC, just felt that if there were any anywhere, they just did their own thing whatever it is that gods do, wherever they do it, and had feck all to do with humans.

Which if by some quirk of fate we do have a local god, is certainly the attitude he she or it took to this tragedy unfolding.