2008-07-11 - Rider Down, NW11

Don't try taking my point and extending it, gayist.

I will do you for a fiver.

I prefer "I Am Become Death". I'd be happy to go into business with someone to produce them for spokes ie part finance them...I love that one and it's London.

I don't think Jesus was a cock. Enough of his teachings have survived as good rules for not being a cock - don't let's get it confused with the appropriation of it by patricarchal tossers through the ages for their own gain. It happened 2000 years ago to convict him, it happens now to convince Americans to vote for Bush as a Christian President.

The Good Samaritan Parable is a particularly skillful piece of story telling. If anything it shows that it makes no difference that we live in larger and larger groupings, increasingly divorced from the nuts and bolts of survival - we have always been cunts, basically - walking past someone in need is not a London 2008 thing at all. The relevance of the Samaritan in the story is complex and lends a deeper aspect. Jesus was speaking to Jews, and a far simpler rendering of the lesson - basically, "don't be a cunt and walk past someone in need" - could have been told just with jewish characters. But it's cleverer in the form that exists. Jews looked down on Samaritans as the scummy end of the social spectrum. The parable when told in context would have been received like a bad joke, as it inverts the expectation of the Samaritan's response and makes the self-satisfied guy listening realise maybe he isn't so helpful to his fellow man as he could be. Bit like all of us self-satisfied cunts in London, walking past and giving ourselves reasons for not getting involved, then we feel bad when someone far less suited to getting involved unthinkingly wades in.

On a personal note my favourite bit is when the Samaritan assures the innkeeper he'll settle up bills for whatever's incurred. Generous and slick with it.

I have no religious persuasion, btw.

Tynan you were telling me that offense and hurt were not the same thing so I used race to illustrate that offensive words can indeed be hurtful however lets be clear as I did not draw any moral equivalence between racism and criticism of religious beliefs.

Ok, fine.

I do not believe that religion should be above crictism but then I do not believe that the statement "Jesus is a cock" is legitimate criticism.

I am sure you do, but I was not expressing what you thought, I was expressing what I thought.

Religious prejudice whatever which way you want to dress it up is still prejudice and historically has led crimes equally as henious as those justified on the basis of race.

"Religious prejudice whatever which way you want to dress it up is still prejudice" - is this some kind tautologist victory through semantics ? I honestly don't get your point ?

If you are saying I am prejudice (hostile?) toward religion - then yes you are right - if you are then saying that this historically has led to heinous crimes, then yes this is also right - what point is it that you are making ?

I would suggest before you reply (and I am having to guess your intentions here) you might want to take a quick look at the wikipedia entry on the 'Slippery Slope' logical fallacy.

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

I wonder if your prejudice extends just towards Christians or does it extend to all religions?

All religions.

[quote=tynan;224461]The Brothers Grimm do not sanction rape, genocide.....etc/quote]

have you ever read any unabridged grimm?

Outrageously Anti-semitic, also a bit hilarious.

"the jew in the bush"

Wouldn't say self satisfied PJS. its a big place and you can't extend a hand to all. you only got two. or something like that. people turn inwards because out of those who reach out in the citys a hell of a lot want something. this is why we are so surprised when someone does something out of the goodness of the heart, reach out and share the love.... would this be a bad moment to burst out into song..... ;)

The accidents i have seen in town have always been followed by people helping out. always. us londaaners are their when needed. but you can fk off your big issue, knock off DVD's and fking money for a cup of tea. fking grubby handed urchins!

Jesus isn't really a Cock, fucking hopeless at carpentry and had to go into the entertainment industry but in comparison to Muhammad he is alright. that Muhammad doesn't know if he is coming or going. Twat hasn't done a days work in his life and has ended up confusing hundreds of those sand bagging sandle wearing camel herders...

... aaaaaand stand back.....

I prefer "I Am Become Death". I'd be happy to go into business with someone to produce them for spokes ie part finance them...I love that one and it's London.

20/80, you do the cleaning and take the bins out ?

I don't think Jesus was a cock. Enough of his teachings have survived as good rules for not being a cock - don't let's get it confused with the appropriation of it by patricarchal tossers through the ages for their own gain.

What reference are you using to say his teachings were/are good rules ?

By that I mean what teachings are you referring to ?

.... would this be a bad moment to burst out into song..... ;)

:)

What reference are you using to say his teachings were/are good rules ?

I don't want to speak for pyjamas but, I think it would be a pretty difficult argument to make, that the moral standards that Jesus preached and upheld (i.e. don't kill people, don't steal their shit, don't rape people etc etc etc) would not be considered as 'good' rules.

I wouldn't want to be the person that derails this religious argument into the realm of morality though. Although that seems inevitable already.

So you like the other sticker then ? :)
I like the concept but not the execution, similar to my take on religion really :]

Hostility towards religion is not a problem but hostility towards people who practice religion is not acceptable. Insensitivity in action or words to a person religious beliefs can be construed by that person as hostility to them as an individual. Now you can argue that religionists are overly sensitive but equally your insensitivity exposes you to the charge of prejudice.

I don't want to speak for pyjamas but, I think it would be a pretty difficult argument to make, that the moral standards that Jesus preached and upheld (i.e. don't kill people, don't steal their shit, don't rape people etc etc etc) would not be considered as 'good' rules.

I am a little confused here (not unusual ! :)

I would think that rules such as don't kill people, don't steal their shit, don't rape people etc etc would be good rules ?

The Grimms Brother were rape, murder and pillage as well, it just got edited so many time, now that we got a children version.

the Grimms brother got their story through word of mouth and folk story, before they put it down in writing.

Cinderella, when the two fat ugly lady got caught, they have to dance to the death wearing fire-hot metal shoes while getting whipped. that wasn't in Disney. (found that out when I;m studying animation and were researching the orgins of the story which can go as far back as even 2,000 years).

The Bible and the Grimms Brother story is exactly the fucking same, edit after edit after edit from word of mouth to paper, the Bible however were constantly rewritten god know how many time to suit society at the time.

Check the Singing Bones, before the Grimms Brother put it in their book, there were many different interpretation before the Grimms put it in writing.

http://www.pitt.edu/~dash/type0780.html

I am a little confused here (not unusual ! :)

I would think that rules such as don't kill people, don't steal their shit, don't rape people etc etc would be good rules ?

You asked Pyjamas "What reference are you using to say his teachings were/are good rules ?"

These are some of the rules that are ascribed to Christian/Catholic teaching.

I think it is pretty safe to say that the moral system by which most of the western world works by is based on Christianity. Whether that is right or wrong is moot. It's just fact.

Hostility towards religion is not a problem but hostility towards people who practice religion is not acceptable.

Then do not do it.

Insensitivity in action or words to a person religious beliefs can be construed by that person as hostility to them as an individual.

This is something they will have to learn to deal with, whatever lack of conviction they have in their ideology that lays them open to such vulnerability from criticism, they themselves will have to address, and not rely on others to keep their mouths shut when around the fragile egos of the religious.

If I wish to express contempt for the Conservative party, the Labour party, Communism, Capitalism, Astrology, Tarot card reading, the BNP - should I remain silent in case that person construes my contempt for their ideology for personal hostility, can I not have a robust and passionate debate about any of these things in case I offend ?

Nonsense, nothing more than religions unjustified claim to deference as a defence against criticism.

Now you can argue that religionists are overly sensitive but equally your insensitivity exposes you to the charge of prejudice.

How many times am I going to have to say this ! :)

YES ! OF COURSE !!

If 'charged' with prejudice (hostility) towards religion I please guilty.
If 'charged' with prejudice (hostility) towards racism I please guilty.
If 'charged' with prejudice (hostility) towards pedophilia I please guilty.
If 'charged' with prejudice (hostility) towards misogyny I please guilty.
If 'charged' with prejudice (hostility) towards unjustified physical violence I please guilty.

Are you getting how I mean to go on ?

To clarify, I do not see prejudice as a pejorative when dealing with things I find offensive.

Then do not do it.

This is something they will have to learn to deal with, whatever lack of conviction they have in their ideology that lays them open to such venerability from criticism, they themselves will have to address, and not rely on others to keep their mouths shut when around the fragile egos of the religious.

If I wish to express contempt for the Conservative party, the Labour party, Communism, Capitalism, Astrology, Tarot card reading, the BNP - should I remain silent in case that person construes my contempt for their ideology for personal hostility, can I not have a robust and passionate debate about any of these things in case I offend ?

Nonsense, nothing more than religions unjustified claim to deference as a defence against criticism.

How many times am I going to have to say this ! :)

YES ! OF COURSE !!

If 'charged' with prejudice (hostility) towards religion I please guilty.
If 'charged' with prejudice (hostility) towards racism I please guilty.
If 'charged' with prejudice (hostility) towards pedophilia I please guilty.
If 'charged' with prejudice (hostility) towards misogyny I please guilty.
If 'charged' with prejudice (hostility) towards unjustified physical violence I please guilty.

Are you getting how I mean to go on ?

To clarify, I do not see prejudice as a pejorative when dealing with things I find offensive.

I suppose you mean plead? and vulnerability rather than venerability? Sorry, I hate to ruin such wonderful aruguments with semantics, but I can't help it.

You're never gonna win this buddha. Tynan just doesn't give a fuck haha

I like the concept but not the execution, similar to my take on religion really :]

It's the religious executions that get bums on seats though.

You asked Pyjamas "What reference are you using to say his teachings were/are good rules ?"

These are some of the rules that are ascribed to Christian/Catholic teaching.

I think it is pretty safe to say that the moral system by which most of the western world works by is based on Christianity. Whether that is right or wrong is moot. It's just fact.

I take it you have not read the bible ? I am being serous here, apologies if I appear sarcastic I don't mean to be !! :) (it is hard on a forum to ask direct questions like this without sounding sarcastic!)

*"(i.e. don't kill people, don't steal their shit, don't rape people etc etc etc)"
*

Are you honestly telling me that the bible does not sanction killing / murder (I am sticking with the Hebrew 'ratsach' for this little controversy!), rape, genocide, torture, human sacrifice, infanticide, patricide, the killing of homosexuals, slavery, sexual slavery etc etc ?!?!

Seriously ?

Anyhow, when he (Pajamamamamas) said Jesus' teachings were/are good rules, my question would be from where is he reading this ?

Is he saying that in the Bible Jesus lays down good rules for us to follow - or are these rules exobiblical ?

Simply, is he getting these rules/guides from the Bible ?

I suppose you mean plead? and vulnerability rather than venerability? Sorry, I hate to ruin such wonderful aruguments with semantics, but I can't help it.

You're never gonna win this buddha. Tynan just doesn't give a fuck haha

Yep - should have been vulnerability - cheers ! :)

I do 'give a fuck' I think we may not survive religion.

(it is hard on a forum to ask direct questions like this without sounding sarcastic!)

Is it?

FFS - it's 'offence' not 'offense'.

Not if you're American, it ain't!
Offense, defense, realize, initialize, center, theater, favorite, color, ta-MAY-toe, 'errrrrb... so there!

Oh, and just to pre-empt the people who will inevitably reply that there's an "H" in "herb"... there's an "H" in "honest" as well.

tynan I think you may have read living asleep's truncated sentence and missed a negative which turned the sense into the positive...or something...

[/quote]
What reference are you using to say his teachings were/are good rules ?

By that I mean what teachings are you referring to ?[/quote]

er..that's obviously a fairly long discussion...probably not suited to a rider down thread... as a basis - yep I'm assuming a general sense of what's accepted as "right" and "wrong", given that much of the worls seems to be in agreement regardless of religious peruasion, and Jesus's position as an originator of teachings rather than a figure cooked up by a religious sect to propogate their own ideas. But yeah, I think I could have that conversation, though I wold seriously try to avoid it...

@Greasy slag - yeah I wouldn't describe myself as self-satisfied either really, but some people are. I'd be more the introverted and paranoid type. One of the characters in the parable covers that response too. But yeah there are plenty of good samaritans in London, i know that. I am helpful sometimes myself, but there have been times when I haven't been. Cyclist down? easy. Grimy, smelly, dribbling homeless dragging himself along with his hands and whining "help me" in covent garden in the rain? Couple of years ago I stood watching this, appalled at how such a creature could carry in like that. Fifty or so people walked past while he whined on. Then a young guy unthinkingly got down beside him and picked him up in his arms and started to help him. I felt fairly cunty.

So in your world view this bloke needs to get over himself

Not if you're American, it ain't!
Offense, defense, realize, initialize, center, theater, favorite, color, ta-MAY-toe, 'errrrrb... so there!

Oh, and just to pre-empt the people who will inevitably reply that there's an "H" in "herb"... there's an "H" in "honest" as well.

I'm not American, and this is essentially a London forum, and I don't like US realization* of English due to laziness or ignorance on the part of English English speakers.

• the use of 'z' was originally an English thing, and still preferred by the OED.