-
-
-
-
-
-
-
*Medium Pace Group, leaving at 8.00am
- Stompy*
2. gabes
3. Skully
4.Dropout
5. ZigZagatha
6. 50/14
7. WAID
*8. Stevo_com :)
*9. Pinkgottimobbs - livingasleep
Medium/Fast Group, leaving at 8.45am
1. Lebowski
2. dogsballs
3. eyebrows (if I have a bike)
4. usukmetendoller (lewis)
5. m-xl
6. elvis
*7. andy
8.kelvin (not that fast but in with the other brightonians
*
Fast Group, Leaving at 9.30am
1. Mikec
2. Hillbilly
*3. Sainsburys Ed- Claus
*
TRAIN GROUP, Leaving 11:45 (Victoria)
*Object
*Im up for this. Will this be tough? I've never done a ride anywhere near this distance.
- Stompy*
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
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 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.
-
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.
-
-
Fortunately they weren't granted charitable status as they're insufficiently 'religious' to be eligible for the benefits charitable status gives. As i've typed this a massive thunder storm has started outside my window. Does that mean Tom Cruise is about to burst through the window?
FLYING SPAGHETTI MONSTER!
-
... a LFGSS smoke sesh.