The EU debate - Part II

400 years ago he'd have been burning witches in the town square!...

 

But you can understand that - I mean if a woman weighs the same as a duck then she's blatantly a witch. It seems logical to me!

 

I suppose we could try pointing out that a ship weighs a lot more than both, but still doesn't sink?...

 

I'm going to throw it out there.

Regardless of who you are...why does everyone or anyone have to accept homosexuality anyway? It's like the first thing that pops up as a default measurement of how ****ish you are as a person.

My religion has nothing to do with about 85% of my views. They would be my views regardless...but I'd get beaten with that stick no doubt.

I've known, been in communication with homosexuals for the past 20 years here and there, be it through work, through other mates or having watched them on t.v.

Anthony K Amos for example...a comedian, I find him absolutely hilarious and a top bloke. I think Graham Norton and Stephen Fry are very intelligent and I would happily invite them over for tea and have a chinwag.

On the other hand...I used to be with this one gal dem for a good 6 years. She knew 2 gay blokes...I even socialised with them. However slowly but surely they made me feel uncomfortable. They would use vulgar language and throw around sexual innuendo in front of my woman that if it was a straight bloke everyone would think I was well within my rights to knock his ****ing head off. Then they also thought they could sit there demanding shoulder massages and invite my gal dem to sit on his laps, cuddles etc. That eventually brought out the ****** in me. My gal, being the duppy cow that she was would try to explain it to me saying, to paraphrase 'ohh but they are effeminate men' I said so let me get this right....you have considered their 'nature' yet you forget to consider the nature of a straight bloke because as far as I'm concerned they are two blokes with dicks and they behave around you in a manner I could probably accept a woman doing but if it was a straight bloke even you would be expecting me to say something. For me they confused my social behaviour.

So for me, no I wouldn't kill them, I wouldn't be rude to them...but I wouldn't want them in my social circle either if it involved my woman.

Call me whatever, I don't give a damn...but for me it's like when they come too close to my social circle they disrupt the natural flow of things. When on the odd occasion I'd ask them to come and chill with me and my homies, they would decline.

So for me, may they live long and prosper...but I don't like the comman gay man around me if my woman is there even though on a sexual level the heterosexual bloke is more of a threat to my gal, speaking in law of the jungle terms.

The likes of the 3 famous people I mentioned above are too refined to act like that I bet....but the friend zone does not work for me and my woman.

 

I would get annoyed with somebody who was taking liberties with me or somebody close to me, regardless of their sexuality.

There's irritating ****s in all races, creeds, sexual persuasions, etc. Some think they should be treated differently. Some blatantly play the race or homophobic card to excuse their behaviour. Mind you, in your case, it's difficult if your lady really doesn't mind? Only you and her know if that's the case, or if she's just trying to be polite.

Where I'll agree with you, mate, is it doesn't wash with me. You can scream homophobic or racist all you like, but if your out of order, you're still getting put back in your box.

 

Just to reinforce how futile the celebrations were after the pound "rallied" last week....it's dipped again. A daily rise or fall means very little at the minute, it's the long term prospects that should be of concern and the fact that it hasn't bounced back to pre-referendum levels suggests that there is going to be a long term impact.

Mortgage approvals also at a 19 month low so the suggestion that the housing market is still flying is questionable.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-37219803

 

I saw Graham Norton before he was well know and was on the north London alternative comedy circuit. His whole act was built on making a straight guy in the audience uncomfortable by his come ons.

 

Ex lady

 

Flip that around and the straight man is in bother.

 

shhh!

 

No thoughts then,dreamer.

 

Did you not see that bit about doubt in my post?

 

I just told you what I thought, or maybe you missed it? Yeah, you probably did!...

I'm against death penalty. Full stop. Apart from the moral aspects of it, most of which have been covered if you've been following the discussion, the old bill still make far too many mistakes.

When it comes to the death penalty, one mistake is one too many.

 

I have a plan

 

What? For framing damp chair?

That's not very nice, Custard!...

 

I did, but considering there have been a huge number if cases of people wrongly imprisoned (and to be imprisioned you have to be found guilty beyond reasonable doubt), only to be proved to be innocent years - sometimes decades later. How would you remove doubt in these cases?

 

The 'one death is too many' argument against the death penalty is an interesting one.

I just had a very quick look for figures, and the recidivist rate for murderers and rapists seems to far outweigh wrongful executions. Even a percentage of the wrongful executions were innocent of the crime, but far from innocent individuals.

Interestingly, because of the procedure, you're far more likely to win an appeal on death row, than you would if sentenced to life. Imprisonment.

That seems to point to the general public being far more at risk of being the victim of a released prisoner, than a victim of the justice system.

 

Well, let's go back to the eighteenth century and top the lot of them, eh? Not just murderers but rapists, thieves, forgers, blackmailers, the lot! That'll stop any of 'em doing it again, eh?

What a ridiculous supporting argument for an outdated, barbaric punishment, that will stay in the distant past. Where it belongs!

 

That would be silly, and is nothing to do with what I posted.

I was simply questioning the logic of that argument.

 

We were simply using conjecture. The moral argument against capital punishment is compelling enough. It's been consistently proven that it's not a deterrent. So, that leaves only retribution. Which, in my opinion is not a road any civilised society would go down. So we can teach the rest of our society that killing is wrong, by er..killing the people who commit murder?

Many of us have agreed that for the worst and most dangerous of killers, life should mean exactly that. However, in many cases there are circumstances than can heavily mitigate the degree of culpability. Crime Passionel, etc.