OLAADEGBU:


Where did Jesus commission us to preach the gospel?

..
U actually think everyone gives a fvck about yeshua abii

budaatum:

United Kingdom citizens have a negative right to freedom of expression under the common law. However, there is a broad sweep of exceptions which you are not free to say and include threatening, abusive or insulting words or behavior intending or likely to cause harassment, alarm or distress or cause a breach of the peace (which has been used to prohibit racist speech targeted at individuals), sending any article which is indecent or grossly offensive with an intent to cause distress or anxiety (which has been used to prohibit speech of a racist or anti-religious nature), incitement, incitement to racial hatred, incitement to religious hatred, incitement to terrorism including encouragement of terrorism and dissemination of terrorist publications, glorifying terrorism, collection or possession of a document or record containing information likely to be of use to a terrorist, treason including advocating for the abolition of the monarchy (which cannot be successfully prosecuted) or compassing or imagining the death of the monarch, sedition (no longer illegal, sedition and seditious libel (as common law offences) were abolished by section 73 of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009 (with effect on 12 January 2010)), obscenity, indecency including corruption of public morals and outraging public decency, defamation, prior restraint, restrictions on court reporting including names of victims and evidence and prejudicing or interfering with court proceedings, prohibition of post-trial interviews with jurors, scandalising the court by criticising or murmuring judges, time, manner, and place restrictions, harassment, privileged communications, trade secrets, classified material, copyright, patents, military conduct, and limitations on commercial speech such as advertising. You can pretty much say whatever you want except say or do those listed above.

Free speech is one of those "beans is definitely not beans" sort of things, with different nations cooking their own their own ways.

Are you corroborating or refuting my statement?

Martinez39:
Maybe I gave the wrong impression. Of course, we are having a matured discussion and I really enjoyed the discussion. All I meant to say was that you should come to terms with the fact that your position on this issue has been crushed and stop trying to defend it still.

Once a position has been crushed by fact, virtue signalling and going emotional cannot recover such position. I admitted in our last discussion that christian atheist was possible on checking another meaning of the word "christian," why can't you do the same?

I gain no merit in maintaining an untenable position, 39. I am an arrogant fuq who places the highest esteem in my self and would never ever soil my own image with my own stupidity on a public forum where others will dig it up and rub it in my face whenever they want forever. I'm not virtuous, nor do I get emotional over words I read on a screen, and I ensure my head does not get so big that I begin to stupidly think the subjective opinions I have in my head are objective facts that everyone else must accept with no material third party evidence supporting it. You will in fact note that I love providing evidence for my claims and would never ever ask that anyone believe what I say or the evidence I provide. You must not believe buda, 39! If you believe buda you are stupid, and a fool, and a slave, and ignorant, and you will remain so until you stop believing buda and see the objective evidence with your own eyes and begin to understand it in all its guises and implications and you reason for yourself! All the same, the truth will itself pierce through stubborn blind eyes. And even then, I accept that beans to me might not appear as beans to you as you would have understood when you claimed my beans was not even beans at all despite my provision of third party evidence to support my claim, or rather, despite your attempt to be the one who defines what my beans was!

Please know that my star is not brightened by me killing off other's stars. The universe is big enough for us to all glow as brightly as we dare so please know that when you have shown me your point, I will gladly acknowledge that you have as is my nature, Martinez39. But posting silly irrelevant pictures and calling others "liar", "virtue signalling", "emotional", and asking unbelieving buda to believe in your facts when in fact it is one who lacks the ability to comprehend, is in no way "having a mature conversation" nor being objective, in my opinion, which I hope we will be in future. It is those who are levelled and squared that are accepted links to Genesis 4:7, just so you know, but has a meaning outside theology.

You will please forgive me getting the wrong impression.

9inches:

Are you corroborating or refuting my statement?

Yes, "they claim they still have free speech" to say whatever they want to say. It helps that most of us don't want to say what most others would rather not hear.

Martinez39:
The greatest beneficiaries of the welfare system are illegal muslim immigrants where a family even give birth to more than four children and still collect welfare for them.

That is untrue. Migrants aren’t taking our benefits. The remaining links are for if you like to be informed.

Who gets more, pensioners or refugees?

Benefits in Britain: separating the facts from the fiction

budaatum:

I gain no merit in maintaining an untenable position, 39. I am an arrogant fuq who places the highest esteem in my self and would never ever soil my own image with my own stupidity on a public forum where others will dig it up and rub it in my face whenever they want forever. I'm not virtuous, nor do I get emotional over words I read on a screen, and I ensure my head does not get so big that I begin to stupidly think the subjective opinions I have in my head are objective facts that everyone else must accept with no material third party evidence supporting it. You will in fact note that I love providing evidence for my claims and would never ever ask that anyone believe what I say or the evidence I provide. You must not believe buda, 39! If you believe buda you are stupid, and a fool, and a slave, and ignorant, and you will remain so until you stop believing buda and see the objective evidence with your own eyes and begin to understand it in all its guises and implications and you reason for yourself! All the same, the truth will itself pierce through stubborn blind eyes.

Lol. Though you provide links (most of which I haven't checked yet), your arguments, for the most part say other wise. Anyway, my argument is once again misrepresented but I won't go into that. Just have in mind that I never accused you of saying that you treat your subjective reality as objective reality. You always end up arguing that everything is subjective and people's subjective views, especially when it comes to religious arguments, are valid. Up till now, I am yet to know what the photometer is and who/what the calibrator is. Fact is, you were appealing to emotions and virtue signalling. You may deny this but your post is there for everyone to read and confirm what I am saying.

And even then, I accept that beans to me might not appear as beans to you as you would have understood when you claimed my beans was not even beans at all despite my provision of third party evidence to support my claim, or rather, despite your attempt to be the one who defines what my beans was!

more confusion, I never said your beans wasn't beans and I don't know of any third party you provided. Sabrina was very clear on her illustration of objective reality but you came and dishonestly twisted it. For someone who speaks English, what's too difficult to understand in "beans is beans to everyone. The style preparation of preparation might differ depending on individual preference."? You dishonestly misinterpreted her meaning of beans to mean "style of preparation" in order to push your losing case of "everything is subjective."

Oga, here you go again. What do you mean when you say I am trying to define what your beans is? Beans is beans, a rectangle is a rectangular etc. it applies for everyone but since you want your comfortable supreme subjectivity, we will be hearing more of "your beans," "your rectangle," "your triangle" etc. as if they were defined for any individual in particular or as if they are subjective terms.

Please know that my star is not brightened by me killing off other's stars. The universe is big enough for us to all glow as brightly as we dare so please know that when you have shown me your point, I will gladly acknowledge that you have as is my nature, Martinez39. But posting silly irrelevant pictures and calling others "liar", "virtue signalling", "emotional", and asking unbelieving buda to believe in your facts when in fact it is one who lacks the ability to comprehend, is in no way "having a mature conversation" nor being objective, in my opinion, which I hope we will be in future. It is those who are levelled and squared that are accepted links to Genesis 4:7, just so you know, but has a meaning outside theology.

Whatever. Sorry for the memes didn't know they came across as immature. I like memes. I never asked you to believe my facts. In fact, you were appealing to emotions and virtue signalling. You may deny this but your post is there for everyone to read and confirm what I am saying.

You will please forgive me getting the wrong impression.

Okay.

Martinez39:
You always end up arguing that everything is subjective and people's subjective views, especially when it comes to religious arguments, are valid

I have never ever argued "that everything is subjective and people's subjective views, especially when it comes to religious arguments, are valid", 39, but as suspected, you don't bother to read what I write before responding so I'm hardly surprised you misunderstand my view on objectivity and subjectivity and anything else. How please can anyone with an ounce of sense argue that the subjective imaginary crap that is in their head is the entire objective real world? But worse is you not considering your own words, or do you not read the words in your own head too?

Just think for one moment and ask yourself how I can, as you say, "argue that everything is subjective and people's subjective views are valid", when I have been arguing all along that your subjective beans is not everyone's beans and you are are talking crap? Or do you want to claim I am biased because you are not a theist or religious or you are just ignorant about beans? Is the objective evidence not written down for you to see what I argue for? Oh I forget, you don't bother to read what I write. You just disregard the evidence and build your bridge on the imaginary subjective crap that's in your head!

Objectivity is what enables me to have no bias towards anyone, regardless of their colour, creed, religion, sexual preference or any other criteria you can think of, except perhaps those who use their brain, 39, whom, I daresay, I always show a preference and have time for.

Do let me know if you ever bother reading the thread in its entirety. Understanding both the objective and subjective ensure I do not stare in a mirror and think the person in it is not me. I have no doubt it will positively effect your growth.

Martinez39:
In fact, you were appealing to emotions and virtue signalling. You may deny this but your post is there for everyone to read and confirm what I am saying.

I never ever appealed to emotions, 39, but if what you say is true and I lie, I'm sure you'd just post my post as objective evidence that supports your claim so that I can humbly admit it and amend my ways and be grateful to you for the privilege.

I thank you in advance.