Slarti
-
Posts
3,453 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
17
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Store
Posts posted by Slarti
-
-
4 minutes ago, W6er said:
So this guy essentially goes around filming people's interactions with the police and antagonising political activists?
I have no time for Communism, which is widely reported to have been responsible for 100 million people's deaths last century, having spawned the likes of Pol Pot, Mao and Stalin, but why bother them? It would have been different had he gone their with the intention of debating with them in a civilised manner, in which case they would have looked like idiots had they been rude to him. However, it's natural for folk to react adversely when they have a camera put in their faces and then responding with childish insults makes him look like an idiot, even if he was reacting to being called a 'knobhead'.
He basically strikes me as a guy with too much time on his hands.
It's basically just a dickhead who has found something that he can do to annoy people that isn't against the law. There are quite a few of them on You Tube.
-
I expected @shull to stop flogging dead horses. Unfortunately, ...
-
9 minutes ago, W6er said:
The ban seemed quite spiteful and uncalled for. He got a lot of stick due to the 'Mr St. Mirren' moniker, but the guy loves the club and robbing him of that over a dispute wasn't reasonable behaviour, IMHO.
To be fair, I don't know anyone (not even Alan) who refers to him as Mr St Mirren. That was just a press invention, though he really should have nipped it in the Bud (pun intended).
-
IIRC (though I could be wrong), Alan's action against "the club and the board (as a whole)" was due to the stadium ban and totally separate from any proceedings the Kibble members of the board had taken (or implied they were taking) regarding Alan's comments. It seems unlikely that Alan dropping the threat of legal action resulted in the decision to lift the ban (at least directly) as that was not the reason for the ban in the first place. More likely that the board has said to Alan "we'll let you back in but we want you to drop the legal action" and Alan has replied "OK, the legal action was only because of the ban". So, in respect of this matter only, Alan gets what he wants without proceeding with legal action. In essence, the board have realised that they haven't got a (legal) leg to stand on regarding the ban and Alan's threat of legal action has made them shit themselves.
The statement's wording is just a bit of spin to save face.
-
2 hours ago, HSS said:
I noticed that too Not sure if they have just taken a short term lease to see how it goes or if the Agents are just lazy 🤷
I think it's the former.
I was in 2 Fridays ago and it was pretty quiet(ish). Apparently it's always packed on a Wednesday.
-
To me, he comes across as a complete tosser.He has balls of steel. Soft toes though [emoji23]
-
11 hours ago, faraway saint said:
Isn't it despicable that Hamas are operating from inside areas densely populated by civilians?
Over the years both sides have carried out acts of violence but the move by Hamas two weeks ago shows little respect for the civilians in Palestine, not to mention the deliberate slaughter of Israeli innocents only two weeks ago.
The recent bombing of a hospital is, well, hard to find words, but it shouldn't be forgotten that Hamas have escalated this shitfest to a level never seen before and with the interest of other countries in the region feck knows what will happen in the next few weeks/months.
Anyone taking"sides" is this really should have a good look at themselves.
I'm not excusing them, but isn't the whole of Gaza densely populated?
-
Jesus spoke in parables, Slarti! It makes sense to love God more than your family given that He has created everything and died an agonising death for your sins.
It doesn't make sense at all. God made everything according to a single book that has no corroborating evidence. There's just as much evidence that a universe creating pixie called Kevin created everything. I.e. none. There is no evidence that the universe was "created" at all.
He didn't die for my sins. Sin only exists if God exists and there is no good evidence for God. -
Just now, stlucifer said:
Or more likely, the fantasist who claimed he said it wrote it.
I have no trouble agreeing, for arguments sake, that Jesus existed and said all the stuff he is supposed to have said. I could even grant all the miracles and the resurrection. None of that, in part or whole, proves that he was the son of god.
-
5 hours ago, W6er said:
Matthew 5:17-18 Jesus fulfils the law, as I have stated before. If you believe in Him then that is the end of the law (Romans 10:4). It's the heathens and atheists who will be judged by the law. He is our redeemer.
Matthew 10:34-37 simply means that His message will be divisive and you should love God like your family members. Consider how many people converted from Judaism and the various pagan religions to Christianity, and how that would have been perceived by their parents?
Jesus fulfilling the law means that he obeys the law perfectly, it has nothing to do with the law ending. He said (paraphrasing), that the law still exists if heaven still exists. As Christians believe that they will spend eternity in heaven then heaven can't end and therefore the law can't end. I won't be judged by anyone after I'm dead.
If it simply means that the message will be divisive, he could have said "My message will be divisive" instead of all that nonsense so, no, I don't think that is what it means. He specifically says that you should love him MORE than your family members.
-
Jesus said, “Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they are doing.” That was after they had nailed Him to a cross.
If people lived as Christ instructed us to, there would be no wars!
But he also said:
Matthew 5:17-18:
“Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish but to fulfill. For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass from the Law until all is accomplished."
(I actually prefer the "jot" and "tittle" version from the KJV)
and:
Matthew 10:34-37:
“Do not think that I have come to bring peace to the earth; I have not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I have come to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law; and one’s foes will be members of one’s own household. Anyone who loves their father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; anyone who loves their son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me."
So unless you think that all is accomplished and heaven and earth have passed away, all the 613 laws of the old testament still apply. You know, the ones about not eating shellfish and stoning a disobedient child to death etc.
And don't forget to take up your sword against your parents.
Muslims think theirs is the one true faith as do Jews, Hindus, etc. Faith is not a reliable way to come to the truth.
-
But even then, it's not "universal" as different faiths have different "moral" codes which allow them to do different things. In fact, not just allow, but require. The fact that most people of faith don't follow their faith to the letter is the only thing that saves us from all out religious war. But those that do can give us situations like we have in Gaza just now.There was a time when it was acceptable to send kids up chimneys, to press-gang men into the navy, to prosecute gay people (e.g. Oscar Wilde), to have 'gollies' on jam jars, to cane school children, etc, etc.
The Romans crucified thieves and fed people to the lions! Are you aware of how they punished patricide? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poena_cullei
Moral standards have varied throughout history. There is no universal moral code...well unless you have faith and it is written down, of course. -
You should judge incidents based on contemporaneous morality. I suppose the ECHR was conceived in 1951 and that prohibited genocide. The modern Israeli state's existence began in 1947...so any ethnic cleansing following 1951 would certainly be immoral by the standards of the day. They certainly were not 1,800 years ago.
So you're saying that there was a time in human history when it was ok to own other humans as property? To wipe out whole civilisations? To make human sacrifices?
And it was OK for Israel to kick out the Palestinians pre 1951?
As I said, any timescale is arbitrary.
What has already happened can't be changed. What can be changed is actions going forward.
There really is no such thing as a set of modern morals, you just need to look at different countries around the world to see that. Or even different people within a country. Or different people on this forum. Morals are personal and totally subjective. -
So you don't look back into ancient history and judge the past with today's morals. How far can you look back and judge with today's morals? 1000 years? 500 years? 100 years? Last week? Whatever time frame is chosen is just arbitrary and usually done for the benefit of the person choosing. My point is that shit has happened in the past, more shit now is not going to fix that. Talk and compromise, not hate and killing.I knew boiling folk alive was one of Genghis Khan's tactics. I have just learned that he was previously known as Temujin, and perhaps having his own generals boiled alive was inspired him.
I'm tempted to post a few of Vlad the Impaler's war crimes, too...but they are really horrific.
Anyway, my point is that until relatively recently wars happened and to this victor went the spoils, usually including the territory. Consider how many Empires there have been throughout history (Roman, Persian, British, Mongolian, Austrian-Hungarian, Ottoman, Arabian, Russian, etc, etc)? That was just what happened.
The concept of International Law as we know it really began last century with the League of Nations (not to be confused with the Nations League)...which coincided with the start of the Zionist land grab. So I would suggest the Israelis should have known better.
-
Some folk, back when different empires were continually replacing others, predicted that there would be wars over land. So they basically predicted that things wouldn't change. Geniuses, so they wur.Religion eh?
Some on here would argue that no one has ever died in the world over different religious beliefs. [emoji848]
“Hell mend them all” as my granny used to say.
No doubt someone will say that “the scriptures” predicted this shite.
-
He's just a c**t, not a total c**t.Total cnuts thread for him surely?
eh [mention=15951]Slarti[/mention] -
I think my "Total Cunts" thread should really have been the place for all this. After all, it covers both sides. There was no need for another thread - or even two (though the 2nd one was only started in retaliation to you-know-who's woeful attempt at being controversial). But that's you-know-who for you.
-
The question still remains, how far do you go back? The Jews were kicked out 1800 years ago, the Palestinians 70 years ago. If the Israelis are kicked out now, does that give them a better claim than the Palestinians as it's more recent? If the Palestinians were kicked out "illegally", were the Jews kicked out "illegally" 1700 years previously? Does that mean the Palestinians were illegally occupying the area?All true. However, the vast majority of Jews were expelled from the land around 1,900 years ago. The Jewish state(s) are established historical fact, and there has always been a Jewish presence in the territory now, though it declined to just a few percent of the total population. As you say, the problem is it's impractical to go and reclaim territory that you vacated (even if forced to do so) ~1,800 years later.
The Palestinians have been usurped from land that they have possessed for literally 18 centuries. Is that reasonable? I don't think it is.
The same folk that are on the Palestinian side now, would probably have been on the Jewish side when it was a British mandate.
It's really all just a big f**kup and most of those in the area probably just want to live their lives peacefully and don't really give a f**k what religion their government are as long as they're treated equally. -
The Jewish inhabited state of Israel existed over 3000 years ago along with Judea. It was after the Roman invasion and their renaming of the area as the province of Syria Palestine that "Palestine" came into existence. Therefore, Israel is much older than Palestine. The claim that Jews are usurping land that is rightly Palestinian is based on shaky foundations. The whole thing depends on how far you want to go back. The Israelites invaded the land of others over 3000 years ago. Those people probably kicked out previous inhabitants prior to that. How far do you gp back to determine who's land it is?
The whole debacle could be sorted if they all just respected the rights of others to have differing opinions, treated everyone equally and didn't think violence was the answer. -
Irish? Is that not what I said? [emoji16][emoji38]
No, but I have an ancestor from Ireland who came, presumably, to escape the famine. My great-grandfather, whom my mother knew, lost two of his three siblings and his father in childhood and yet was a devout Christian, even becoming a lay preacher. One of my ancestors was recruited into the Royal Navy aged just 14 and, presumably as a result of being malnourished, stood at just 5 foot tall - of course he still would probably tower over [mention=2846]faraway saint[/mention], though!
My grandmother's brother, who she never talked about, succumbed to wounds he had sustained in WWII in 1947. I had a great-great grandmother condemned to spend he final year in a poor house - the humiliation and sadness of that really struck me. The poverty and illiteracy (many just seemed to guess their date of birth and spelt their names differently on each census) is plain to see. I also have a great-great-great grandfather who was a preacher and used to preach in Glasgow Green! [emoji4]
-
There does seem to be something slightly hypocritical about bemoaning colonialism and choosing to live in a foreign country, on a different continent, which relatively recently had an Empire. That's especially true of a Zimbabwean, given that until the late 1970s it was relatively prosperous and known as the 'Breadbasket of Africa' and, of course, Rhodesia. Having deposed Ian Smith and replacing him with the charming Robert Mugabe, recipient of an honorary degree from Edinburgh University and an honorary knighthood, you'd think she would have been happy in her free, native land.
I'd have thought, with the exception of immigrants post-WW II, most people's ancestors would come almost exclusively from the British Isles, at least back until the Norman invasion. There may be a few exceptions - e.g. Jews and Huguenots. Certainly mine do, as does my partner's. It's actually quite interesting to do and I would highly recommend it if you have the time. I used ancestry.com and found all sorts of really interesting facts that I was hitherto unaware of.
You're really an Aborginal African Eskimo Pygmy Jew, aren't you. -
1 hour ago, ALBIONSAINT said:
Does it? So are the folks at the Guardian a bit dim? I was giving a hint that the content of the thread could be construed as antisemitic.
I don't know what the cartoon was so I can't comment on it.
The Guardian have possibly just bowed to pressure and a potential backlash, rather than actually believe it is anti-Semitic.
If they do believe it then, yes, they aren't very intelligent.
I haven't seen anything in this thread that could realistically be construed as anti-semitic. Even the title isn't anti-semitic.
-
You can be called it, doesn't mean you are. It's just an attempt at stopping criticism, and not a very clever one. The fact that some folk fall for it says a lot more about the intelligence of they folk than it does about the validity of the argument.Unfortunately the lines have been blurred, deliberately. You apparently cannot condemn Israel's actions without being called antisemetic.
On top of that, no religion should be exempt from criticism. Bad ideas/actions should be called out no matter their origin. And this whole situation is rooted in religion - on both sides. -
Condemning the actions of the Israeli government is not antisemitic.This thread is verging on being antisemitic and should probably be closed.
Explosive Smisa application
in General St. Mirren Discussion
Posted
3 parties??? I wasn't invited to any of them. 😪