Rayvin

I wouldn't worry too much on the climate denial front - we're going to start seeing some very clear indications of it in due course and they're probably unavoidable now anyway. Probably time we accepted our fate on that one.

Yep, that'll be about the size of it. Although this is really just corporate lobbying taken to its natural conclusion I guess. Keeping it in the family.

Quitting his business interests after all: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/nov/30/donald-trump-leaving-business-interests Presumably handed over to family though.

I was reluctant to start any because I'm not gifted at swearing but now that we're done with that, I'll try to be more proactive about it

Yeah that's interesting, his reference to similar trends in the US. "Born to die for the state" sums it up.

Now you're getting it.

I've checked further and he does have a timestamp of an article with the same name pre-dating the published article as proof. Although those can be modified. I doubt we'll ever know for sure, but the article itself was bizarre in my view given that it asserts all of this 'brainwashing' took place and that the guy then just snaps out of it seemingly at will. Agree with you on the newspaper front. The MSM have a lot to answer for. Don't let Gloom catch you criticising them though

Gonna stick with the 2-1 scoreline. They'll smell blood after our extra time fiasco with Hull and that might make them assertive. If they are, we should be able to pull them apart.

Masterful play by your office. Leave it late so that you likely already have plans, but they've still technically invited you, so you can't be overtly aggrieved about it.

Well that's encouraging then, I can continue to vote for unelectable left wing populism without feeling guilty about it.

Judging by the wastefulness of our shooting towards the end of the match (where it became noticeably worse), I think tiredness and fatigue had a lot to do with it.

Serious question then - if a GE was called now, would we all have to vote Tory in order to avoid splitting the non-insane vote?

Will that be a loss to us? Genuine question, I don't think I've seen a great deal to suggest Cathro is all that really, but I'm open to being told otherwise. He didn't seem to help McClaren much.

I'm staggered that there are still people in this day and age who are this regressive about sex... other than radical feminists, and the religious, actually. Yeah come to think of it I can see where this is coming from.

I know no one watches the videos we all post to each other, but this is a good one on why 'bad' Muslims commit terrorist atrocities. It basically supports Renton and toonotl whilst also acknowledging outside factors and so may be useful context for HF - I'm not saying this is the be all and end all of the argument, just that it adds a layer of potential understanding to the issue. The basic premise is that devout Muslims are far less likely to commit terrorist atrocities, because they are already leading good lives. Non-devout Muslims who have lived a life of sin are far more likely to do so (and it mentions that the guys who attacked the WTC frequently visited strip clubs and so on) in order to cleanse themselves of their sins. I watch quite a lot of videos by this guy, he has an interesting and non-Guardian perspective. His sources are listed in a link under the video.

How are we supposed to think they've made an intelligent and informed decisions ffs.

Yes, patriotism is a bizarre one. But maybe less so if you consider religion to be a tool of people who want to supercede the state in people's minds. Maybe religious fervour is just patriotism under another name - and so the similarities should be strong. Given that we all presumably agree that there is nothing in religion, anyway.

I think we're going to see the whole thing pushed underground, and that'll the effects will be worse than what we're already seeing...

I mean, the Japanese martyred themselves in WWII without any religious inclinations and driven entirely by patriotism, so we don't know what they would or wouldn't do in truth. I wouldn't even say what these terrorists have done is worse than what Hitler, Stalin or Mao managed at the height of their powers in terms of how 'twisted' they were, so clearly religion isn't all it takes for humanity to jump off the cliff as far as morality it concerned. I think the whole thing can be viewed as follows: ISIS at the top are motivated by their religion - they're trying to spread as widely as they can to fill the power vacuum left behind by Western meddling in the region. The latter point could be seen as both religious and political. ISIS recruit through attempting to appeal to the tribalistic (in the sense that we are all tribal beings) religious sentiments of all Muslims. This is clearly a religious factor. toonotl demonstrated a source from ISIS to support this observation. This message does not resonate with all Muslims. Therefore, we can conclude that religion on its own is not a sufficient motivator for someone to commit this kind of act. In fact, based on the very small proportion who do commit these acts, it would rationally be fair to say that religion on its own is far from sufficient. Therefore, it is appropriate to consider the additional factors. As Renton has set out quite clearly, we can't combat a religious ideology, we need to wait for them to modernise. But as I think HF sets out, we can combat the other factors. These factors appear to be social, mental health issues with respect of the individuals, and political factors. We can address these points without having to challenge the religion. Does that change the fact that the religion may still want to destroy us? No. ISIS will still want this. But we'll be limiting their message's appeal considerably.

Bloody hell, they really are banning everything on the sex front. This one affects me in no way, shape or form like, but it's a clear indicator of what the Tories think of sex.

I'm fairly sure the point that whole discussion arrived at was that all sides accepted that there were political motivations for terrorist attacks, with the only remaining point of disagreement being how influential religion is in these matters, with HF claiming that the people who commit these attacks are more susceptible to extremism because of other social factors. I actually think we all agree on these points, the only thing you guys aren't seeing eye to eye on is the religious aspect of this. You're really not that far apart.

I don't think that's incontrovertible proof yet tbh. I actually quite badly want this to be true but him tweeting that he wrote it proves nothing really.

Fuck you. But yeah, it does a bit...

You mean headset and so on? Yeah Will see you around! I'm on most nights.

I saw that article - is that true? How do you know it was trolling? That's hilarious if so Also, which newspaper sources do you value? Its give me a clear idea of your political alignments going forward.