gavreid
Pretty Words...
They don’t believe in transubstantiaton (bread being turned into flesh) however they do believe in the virgin birth and our lady.
I'll take your word for it
They don’t believe in transubstantiaton (bread being turned into flesh) however they do believe in the virgin birth and our lady.
I'll take your word for it
If you don't like it here, why don't you leave?
https://twitter.com/afuahirsch/status/1270331795557486592
Seriously people moaning about the manner in which the statue was taken down need to seriously rethink their priorities. The clip above (from a year or two ago) shows what happens when BAME people raise the issue in a polite manner - laughter, condecension and, yes, outright racism.
Seriously people moaning about the manner in which the statue was taken down need to seriously rethink their priorities.
Some do, some don't. In the words of the Bishop of DurhamThey don’t believe in transubstantiaton (bread being turned into flesh) however they do believe in the virgin birth and our lady.
[reposted to reword]
My priority is staying safe. The idea that direct action of any kind is legitimate in certain circumstances opens the door for any group with any agenda to feel OK to go ahead and break this or burn that or some other such wheeze and that leads us to a world in which I feel even less safe in as a person with one or more characteristic that is going to put me in some group or other's firing line: white, middle class, fairly affluent, middle-aged, wishy-washy liberal centrist (and not a fan of Naim ) just wanting to get to the end of his life as well as he can and to keep his partner safe.
So for those of you who are comfortable with direct action because you're on 'their' side, good for you. But, be under no illusion, one day, you won't be on the side of the majority and then you'll perhaps see why the events over the weekend trouble us / me.
No. I get that. I also accept that I took your argument to an extreme.That's not what I stated nor what I implied.
You made the statement that the statue was erected "to his evil doing" and that was factually incorrect. It was "Erected by citizens of Bristol as a memorial of one of the most virtuous and wise sons of their city AD 1895" (from the plaque), not for him being a slaver. Apologies for being such a pedant.
More importantly, the issue I have is a question about the good / evil balance in a person. When someone stops being 'net good' and worthy and more importantly, who decides that? As I stated but seem to have missed, I think that Colston is an easy case; 20000 dead and the enduring legacy you describe pretty much rules him out as a good guy. For many others memorialised in building names, plaques or statues, once once you've got the Ghandis and Mandelas out of the way, it won't be so clear cut. Do we allow an angry mob to decide in those cases what should or shouldn't remain? If not, who decides and how? As I mentioned in my response to Gav, a more democratic process seems to have failed on an 'easy' case like the Colston statue.
So, earnest question ('cos I don't know) does it matter about all the other memorials in the UK and what do you do about it? Is the proposal from Sadiq Khan about establishing a committee, the way ahead but not just for London?
Is direct action legitimate in the circumstances of people who have been deported into slavery?[reposted to reword]
My priority is staying safe. The idea that direct action of any kind is legitimate in certain circumstances opens the door for any group with any agenda to feel OK to go ahead and break this or burn that or some other such wheeze and that leads us to a world in which I feel even less safe in as a person with one or more characteristic that is going to put me in some group or other's firing line: white, middle class, fairly affluent, middle-aged, wishy-washy liberal centrist (and not a fan of Naim ) just wanting to get to the end of his life as well as he can and to keep his partner safe.
So for those of you who are comfortable with direct action because you're on 'their' side, good for you. But, be under no illusion, one day, you won't be on the side of the majority and then you'll perhaps see why the events over the weekend trouble us / me.
It wasn't just Ferrari though was it? The rest of the panel shared a nice patronising chuckle at the "uppity ******". Pretty revolting stuff all round.Sadly I’d expect nothing more from the flabby red-faced embodiment of racist gammon that is Nick Ferrari. He knows his audience, it just involves looking in the mirror.
Nevertheless, I don’t get this relativist excuse that a man’s bad stuff could be off set by his good stuff. Now while there’s good and bad in all of us, my question about how much good stuff do you need to balance out being a slave trader(?) remains.
I sympathise with what you say.[reposted to reword]
My priority is staying safe. The idea that direct action of any kind is legitimate in certain circumstances opens the door for any group with any agenda to feel OK to go ahead and break this or burn that or some other such wheeze and that leads us to a world in which I feel even less safe in as a person with one or more characteristic that is going to put me in some group or other's firing line: white, middle class, fairly affluent, middle-aged, wishy-washy liberal centrist (and not a fan of Naim ) just wanting to get to the end of his life as well as he can and to keep his partner safe.
So for those of you who are comfortable with direct action because you're on 'their' side, good for you. But, be under no illusion, one day, you won't be on the side of the majority and then you'll perhaps see why the events over the weekend trouble us / me.
I also think there is a useful distinction to be made about damage to things and physical violence directed at people. The latter bothers me, the former, not so much.
[reposted to reword]
My priority is staying safe. The idea that direct action of any kind is legitimate in certain circumstances opens the door for any group with any agenda to feel OK to go ahead and break this or burn that or some other such wheeze and that leads us to a world in which I feel even less safe in as a person with one or more characteristic that is going to put me in some group or other's firing line: white, middle class, fairly affluent, middle-aged, wishy-washy liberal centrist (and not a fan of Naim ) just wanting to get to the end of his life as well as he can and to keep his partner safe.
So for those of you who are comfortable with direct action because you're on 'their' side, good for you. But, be under no illusion, one day, you won't be on the side of the majority and then you'll perhaps see why the events over the weekend trouble us / me.
So your saying here that you would rather keep the status quo in case black/ethnic people gain the upper hand then we (white people) will have the shoe on the other boot i.e. walk in a black man's shoes?
Man that really is a pish way to look at this issue apologies if I'm reading you wrong here but that's the way it's coming across to me.
I had a friend who was an Anglican vicar- he didn’t believe in life after death/ heaven & hell, the resurrection etc. He did believe though that Christian teaching was an excellent thing.Some do, some don't. In the words of the Bishop of Durham
"I wouldn't put it past God to arrange a virgin birth if he wanted. But I don't think he did."
That is not what I'm saying but hey, as everyone seems to think that I'm obviously a white supremacist, f**kin' pile on.
It's clear as day that isn't what you're saying, so no, that's not how you come across at all.That is not what I'm saying but hey, as everyone seems to think that I'm obviously a white supremacist and an apologist for slavery, f**kin' pile on.
It's clear as day that isn't what you're saying, so no, that's not how you come across at all.