dingleberry jam
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#1
Report Thread starter 4 years ago
#1



Freedoms are worth fighting for as is the fight against those who would deny us our freedoms, we must get rid of these holy laws!
0
reply
dingleberry jam
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#2
Report Thread starter 4 years ago
#2
Does no one here care about this religious fascism? I thought it was kind of a big thing here.
0
reply
dingleberry jam
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#3
Report Thread starter 4 years ago
#3
Come on guys, don't leave me hanging.

BaconandSauce
QE2
HanSoloLuck
Achaea
sleepysnooze
MildredMalone
KingBradley
NickLCFC
TercioOfParma
thunder_chunky
Good bloke
0
reply
Good bloke
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#4
Report 4 years ago
#4
You claimed in a previous thread that these laws were made by Brown for religious reasons and cited that witness statement in the video as evidence in support of your claim. It supports no such contention, of course. It may be that his views are conditioned by religion, but the video does not support that contention.

As for the laws, I suspect you'll get as many different opinions from atheists as there are atheists.

I would agree with little of what Brown promulgates in general, especially during his long stint as a supposedly prudent chancellor.

However, I agree that twenty-four hour drinking and increased advertising of gambling have created considerable social problems and were a very bad step to take. I am not in favour of the liberalisation of the drugs regime (other than for genuine medicinal purposes). I am neutral on having more casinos, as long as they are not widely advertised.

My views are driven by what society as a whole needs rather than having a religious source. I abhor the influence of religion in our laws and would like to get rid of religious representatives from the House of Lords as well as disestablishing the Church of England and banning the indoctrination (or other involvement) of children into any religion before the age of eighteen.

In addition, no institution that benefits from public funding (including tax exemptions) should be permitted any religious involvement, and I would ban religious organisations from being able to receive funds from abroad.

I expect most younger atheists to be more liberal on cannabis than I am but I guess they want personal freedom more than they want society to prosper.
2
reply
dingleberry jam
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#5
Report Thread starter 4 years ago
#5
Ah thanks Good bloke.

(Original post by Good bloke)
You claimed in a previous thread that these laws were made by Brown for religious reasons and cited that witness statement in the video as evidence in support of your claim. It supports no such contention, of course. It may be that his views are conditioned by religion, but the video does not support that contention.
Yes and we discovered quite quickly that you don't give the same benefit of the doubt when Islam is mentioned.

(Original post by Good bloke)
My views are driven by what society as a whole needs rather than having a religious source. I abhor the influence of religion in our laws and would like to get rid of religious representatives from the House of Lords as well as disestablishing the Church of England and banning the indoctrination (or other involvement) of children into any religion before the age of eighteen.

I expect most younger atheists to be more liberal on cannabis than I am but I guess they want personal freedom more than they want society to prosper.
We had those freedoms until US Puritans got their way, our drug laws have been driven by religion and racism from foreign lands. Since then prohibition has led to increased drug use, addiction, drug deaths, crime......, how do you think we would be worse off now had we had the balls to tell those foreigners to bugger off and kept the freedom to use drugs without threat of criminal prosecution?
0
reply
nexttimeigetvpn
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#6
Report 4 years ago
#6
All of the TSR closet racists and islam-haters in one tagging, lmao
0
reply
dingleberry jam
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#7
Report Thread starter 4 years ago
#7
(Original post by nexttimeigetvpn)
All of the TSR closet racists and islam-haters in one tagging, lmao
They keep telling us they're fighting for our freedom, but when you actually need them they're nowhere to been seen.
0
reply
Good bloke
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#8
Report 4 years ago
#8
(Original post by dingleberry jam)
Ah thanks Good bloke.



Yes and we discovered quite quickly that you don't give the same benefit of the doubt when Islam is mentioned.



We had those freedoms until US Puritans got their way, our drug laws have been driven by religion and racism from foreign lands. Since then prohibition has led to increased drug use, addiction, drug deaths, crime......, how do you think we would be worse off now had we had the balls to tell those foreigners to bugger off and kept the freedom to use drugs without threat of criminal prosecution?
We learned no such thing.

Hmm. The Puritans were British and we managed to largely get rid of them to America in the seventeenth century, where they add to a heady broth of religious nuttery and guns. How did they influence UK law-making on drugs? And how is the prohibition of drug use racist?

It's very easy to claim that the prohibition of illegal drug supply is the cause of addiction but rather more difficult to prove it.
0
reply
thunder_chunky
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#9
Report 4 years ago
#9
(Original post by dingleberry jam)
Come on guys, don't leave me hanging.
What is it exactly that you want?
0
reply
TercioOfParma
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#10
Report 4 years ago
#10
I agree, any restriction on JS Mill liberalism in our government and in our laws must be removed.
0
reply
dingleberry jam
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#11
Report Thread starter 4 years ago
#11
(Original post by Good bloke)
We learned no such thing.
Ok suit yourself.

(Original post by Good bloke)
Hmm. The Puritans were British and we managed to largely get rid of them to America in the seventeenth century, where they add to a heady broth of religious nuttery and guns. How did they influence UK law-making on drugs?
Through the League of Nations with a little help from the likes of Egypt and Turkey and their Islamic laws.

(Original post by Good bloke)
And how is the prohibition of drug use racist?
From the start it was pushed with racist propaganda about crazed blacks, Mexicans, Chinese,..Drugs are a cultural thing, many cultures used different drugs to those we deem acceptable, then we come along and dictate that they simply must stop with threats of sanctions and what have you. Then of course there's the disparate arrest rates.


(Original post by Good bloke)
It's very easy to claim that the prohibition of illegal drug supply is the cause of addiction but rather more difficult to prove it.
How do you prove drug legalisation would be harmful to society then? We're talking about very basic freedoms here, there should surely be a bloody good reason to take them away.
0
reply
dingleberry jam
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#12
Report Thread starter 4 years ago
#12
(Original post by thunder_chunky)
What is it exactly that you want?
Get rid of these holy laws of course, I reckon this ones easily achievable, even if you only put in half the effort you do to raise awareness of the dangers Islam whilst achieving bugger all.
0
reply
Good bloke
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#13
Report 4 years ago
#13
(Original post by thunder_chunky)
What is it exactly that you want?
He doesn't want to be left hanging. He wants to be cut down.
0
reply
thunder_chunky
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#14
Report 4 years ago
#14
(Original post by dingleberry jam)
Get rid of these holy laws of course, I reckon this ones easily achievable, even if you only put in half the effort you do to raise awareness of the dangers Islam whilst achieving bugger all.
D'aww good for you, having your own little crusade. You go girlfriend!
0
reply
dingleberry jam
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#15
Report Thread starter 4 years ago
#15
(Original post by thunder_chunky)
D'aww good for you, having your own little crusade. You go girlfriend!
Thanks. You guys made it look so fun.
0
reply
dingleberry jam
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#16
Report Thread starter 4 years ago
#16
(Original post by Good bloke)
He doesn't want to be left hanging. He wants to be cut down.
Ah, is that your game, cutting people down, does it make you feel big, how old are you again?
0
reply
Good bloke
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#17
Report 4 years ago
#17
(Original post by dingleberry jam)
Ah, is that your game, cutting people down, does it make you feel big, how old are you again?
You have the same sense of humour as Gordon Brown, it seems.
0
reply
QE2
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#18
Report 4 years ago
#18
(Original post by dingleberry jam)
They keep telling us they're fighting for our freedom, but when you actually need them they're nowhere to been seen.
It's the weekend. Some of us have lives.

It is wrong for people in positions of power to allow personal preferences of any kind to cloud the objective judgement needed for really effective decision making.
Luckily, in the UK the PM doesn not pass laws on his own. It requires a majority in parliamant so any new statute (or lack of) will not be due to the religious leanings of the PM, but a variety of factors. The main reason why cannabis is still a controlled drug is that the majority of politicians (of all stripes) still view deregulation as a vote loser. That will change, and the personal beliefs of the PM will not prevent its decriminalisation when the tide finally turns.

They are not "Brown's holy laws". They are laws that Brown's religous position favours. Many others also favour them for completely different reasons.

And I'm not fighting for anyone's freedom. People are free to do what they like. I'm just pointing out their mistakes.
0
reply
QE2
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#19
Report 4 years ago
#19
(Original post by nexttimeigetvpn)
All of the TSR closet racists and islam-haters in one tagging, lmao
Losing an argument? Can't make an intelligent point? Your position proved to be nonsense?
Just call them racist.
Instant win.
1
reply
dingleberry jam
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#20
Report Thread starter 4 years ago
#20
(Original post by QE2)
It's the weekend. Some of us have lives.
[*]Total Posts 12,377[*]Posts Per Day 16.90[*]Blimey, how do you fit it all in?


(Original post by QE2)
It is wrong for people in positions of power to allow personal preferences of any kind to cloud the objective judgement needed for really effective decision making.
Luckily, in the UK the PM doesn not pass laws on his own. It requires a majority in parliamant so any new statute (or lack of) will not be due to the religious leanings of the PM, but a variety of factors. The main reason why cannabis is still a controlled drug is that the majority of politicians (of all stripes) still view deregulation as a vote loser. That will change, and the personal beliefs of the PM will not prevent its decriminalisation when the tide finally turns.

They are not "Brown's holy laws". They are laws that Brown's religous position favours. Many others also favour them for completely different reasons.

And I'm not fighting for anyone's freedom. People are free to do what they like. I'm just pointing out their mistakes.
Our drug laws have always been about religious moralising, Brown managed to push these laws through parliament against all advice simply because it wasn't seen as an important issue. This is similar to how these laws came into place in the first place. Egypt wanted hashish adding to an international drug control treaty, we signed it off as hashish was of very little interest to us but appeasing Islamists and US Puritans was.

If others also favour them for completely different reasons it is with very little to no evidence that it actually works, if not religion where do these odd ideas come from?
0
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Back
to top
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

Are you travelling in the Uni student travel window (3-9 Dec) to go home for Christmas?

Yes (48)
31.17%
No - I have already returned home (19)
12.34%
No - I plan on travelling outside these dates (33)
21.43%
No - I'm staying at my term time address over Christmas (14)
9.09%
No - I live at home during term anyway (40)
25.97%

Watched Threads

View All