# Where's the outrage?



## Bung (Jun 13, 2011)

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/suspicious-fire-islamic-boarding-school-105917014.html#17BpNU2

Or doesn't it count when it's brown skinned people?

Come on hypocrites, if this were Muslims burning down a nice white school there would be a half dozen threads already calling for hanging to be brought back.


----------



## Callum-TT (Jun 3, 2013)

Bung said:


> http://uk.news.yahoo.com/suspicious-fire-islamic-boarding-school-105917014.html#17BpNU2
> 
> Or doesn't it count when it's brown skinned people?
> 
> Come on hypocrites, if this were Muslims burning down a nice white school there would be a half dozen threads already calling for hanging to be brought back.


Not quite.

1. Nobody died.
2. Nobody has come forward to admit guilt.

How stupid will you look if it was a group of extremist muslims annoyed with how the school is allowing western society to take over the school?

Get a grip fella as it is a long way to fall from that horse of yours.


----------



## SalsredTT (Jan 8, 2011)

Of course it counts. Anyone who sets fire to a building with human beings inside (of any race, colour or creed) should be shot.


----------



## Bung (Jun 13, 2011)

Callum-TT said:


> Bung said:
> 
> 
> > http://uk.news.yahoo.com/suspicious-fire-islamic-boarding-school-105917014.html#17BpNU2
> ...


Ahh I see so as long as no one dies arson is okay, gotcha.

Work out for yourself why no one has come forward to admit guilt.To me this just shows a lack of commitment by the guilty party, this also answers your rather stupid contention that Muslim extremists may have done it as they pretty much always want to claim credit for what they do,but yet again you are missing the point.

Your reply sums it up really, instead of seeing that there may be a point you simply wish to dismiss it as "nothing much really, move along" no one died so we don't care.
It would seem that it's not me on a high horse, I'm merely pointing out the obvious. For what it's worth to your tiny reptilian brain I find outrage equally in all senseless acts of violence or destruction.


----------



## Callum-TT (Jun 3, 2013)

SalsredTT said:


> Of course it counts. Anyone who sets fire to a building with human beings inside (of any race, colour or creed) should be shot.


I do agree with the last part but the bit I disagree with is you were so quick to bring race into it.


----------



## Bung (Jun 13, 2011)

Callum-TT said:


> I do agree with the last part but the bit I disagree with is you were so quick to bring race into it.


Once again right over your head, how tall are you?


----------



## Callum-TT (Jun 3, 2013)

Bung said:


> Callum-TT said:
> 
> 
> > I do agree with the last part but the bit I disagree with is you were so quick to bring race into it.
> ...


How is it over my head you cretin?

You mention "brown skin people" and call us all on here hypocrites.

I think you need to do one and calm the fuck down.


----------



## Gazzer (Jun 12, 2010)

For me 128kids lives were put in danger and that is unacceptable under any circumstance Bung bud.......haven't seen you on for ages where ya been dude?


----------



## Hark (Aug 23, 2007)

Callum-TT said:


> Bung said:
> 
> 
> > Callum-TT said:
> ...


Cretin is such a great word, not heard it used in ages. Note to self: Call someone a Cretin this week.


----------



## YoungOldUn (Apr 12, 2011)

Until someone is convicted of setting the fire or there is definite proof of someone setting it, no one can say it is racially motivated or that it was done by a non-muslim.

Why do people always have to jump to the racial aspect when it involves people from a non christian or non white community?


----------



## Callum-TT (Jun 3, 2013)

quote]

How is it over my head you cretin?

[/quote]

Cretin is such a great word, not heard it used in ages. Note to self: Call someone a Cretin this week.[/quote]

lol :lol:


----------



## Callum-TT (Jun 3, 2013)

YoungOldUn said:


> Until someone is convicted of setting the fire or there is definite proof of someone setting it, no one can say it is racially motivated or that it was done by a non-muslim.
> 
> Why do people always have to jump to the racial aspect when it involves people from a non christian or non white community?


My point exactly


----------



## Ikon66 (Sep 12, 2003)

Hark said:


> Cretin is such a great word, not heard it used in ages. Note to self: Call someone a Cretin this week.


not hard to do in our job, best said under the breath though :wink:


----------



## IC_HOTT (May 29, 2010)

Bung said:


> http://uk.news.yahoo.com/suspicious-fire-islamic-boarding-school-105917014.html#17BpNU2
> 
> Or doesn't it count when it's brown skinned people?
> 
> Come on hypocrites, if this were Muslims burning down a nice white school there would be a half dozen threads already calling for hanging to be brought back.


Added to foe list for being an arse by trying to cause controversy - think that could be YOU acting hypocritically !!!

Just checked your posts - fuck all about cars - all about controversy and argumentative :roll:


----------



## Skeee (Jun 9, 2009)

Callum-TT said:


> YoungOldUn said:
> 
> 
> > Until someone is convicted of setting the fire or there is definite proof of someone setting it, no one can say it is racially motivated or that it was done by a non-muslim.
> ...


Because a straightforward case of arson is not as 'newsworthy' as a racially motivated arson attack! 
Blame the editor!
Same reason there was no mention of "PRISM" on ITV, BBC etc yesterday, as they were busy reporting the Queens visit, but it was reported in depth yesterday by RT!


----------



## Spandex (Feb 20, 2009)

Callum-TT said:


> YoungOldUn said:
> 
> 
> > Until someone is convicted of setting the fire or there is definite proof of someone setting it, no one can say it is racially motivated or that it was done by a non-muslim.
> ...


I think in this case, given the recent events, it's not unreasonable to 'jump to the racial (well, religious really) aspect'.

I don't think there's much wrong with the OPs point really. We are more outraged by Muslims attacking non-Muslims than we are with the reverse.


----------



## Callum-TT (Jun 3, 2013)

Spandex said:


> Callum-TT said:
> 
> 
> > YoungOldUn said:
> ...


Probably because if someone kills in the name of Islam they openly admit it. Most white British who kill are not religious and sure as fuck don't kill in the name of god or jesus.


----------



## Spandex (Feb 20, 2009)

Callum-TT said:


> Spandex said:
> 
> 
> > I think in this case, given the recent events, it's not unreasonable to 'jump to the racial (well, religious really) aspect'.
> ...


Are you saying that killing in the name of god is more outrageous than killing in the name of racism? It's an odd distinction to make... :?


----------



## Callum-TT (Jun 3, 2013)

Spandex said:


> Callum-TT said:
> 
> 
> > Spandex said:
> ...


No what I am saying is that when those two cunts in Woolwich butchered that lad they apparently acted in the name on "Allah". personally I call bullshit, they are dim-witted cunts who need to be hung, drawn and quartered.

I also feel the cretins who set fire to the Islamic school need to be fucked up, this country is messed up enough without religion getting involved, sadly as long as we have extremist twats killing people then we will have moron racists cunts committing acts of violence apparently defending the country.

I am an ex soldier who served in Afghanistan and Iraq and have lost friends in both conflicts. I also grew up in Woolwich where I was suspended for racism for trying to attend a "black reading group" when I wasn't black to I kicked off and started a "white reading group". In my opinion nothing wrong, you cant have one and not the other. The school agreed when I threatened to take it to the national media.

What I am trying to say is that over the past 10-15 years the country has been so concerned with racial equality that it has gone too far.

Anyway these type of discussions are not really for a car forum


----------



## Spandex (Feb 20, 2009)

Callum-TT said:


> Anyway these type of discussions are not really for a car forum


Yeah, they should make some sort of 'off-topic' and 'flame room' areas where we could discuss this sort of shit. Maybe you could ask one of the mods if they could set something up...


----------



## Bung (Jun 13, 2011)

Callum-TT said:


> How is it over my head you cretin?
> 
> You mention "brown skin people" and call us all on here hypocrites.
> 
> I think you need to do one and calm the fuck down.


Please point me to where I called *everyone* a hypocrite. The OP was phrased as a question, a question that I feel required a degree of honesty when answering it, sorry if it made you feel all defensive about it, and I can assure you that I'm as calm as fuck.



grasmere said:


> think that could be YOU acting hypocritically !!!
> 
> Just checked your posts - fuck all about cars - all about controversy and argumentative :roll:


Yes I should have posted this in the mk2 section-my bad.



Gazzer said:


> For me 128kids lives were put in danger and that is unacceptable under any circumstance Bung bud.......haven't seen you on for ages where ya been dude?


There you go an honest answer, wasn't that hard was it? And hey Gazz.



YoungOldUn said:


> Until someone is convicted of setting the fire or there is definite proof of someone setting it, no one can say it is racially motivated or that it was done by a non-muslim.
> 
> Why do people always have to jump to the racial aspect when it involves people from a non christian or non white community?


I never said it was racially motivated, I implied that the lack of outrage was. Still it's nice to know we still believe in innocent until proven guilty in this country-when it suits us that is.



Spandex said:


> Yeah, they should make some sort of 'off-topic' and 'flame room' areas where we could discuss this sort of shit. Maybe you could ask one of the mods if they could set something up...


Yes they really should do that soon, it might give argumentative and controversial people like me somewhere to discuss things like this.


----------



## jamman (May 6, 2002)

OP reminds me of Rick out of The Young Ones, lots of words and no fucking idea what any of them mean.

A lot of hot air opinions with very little substance and even less interest.

iPhone Edit


----------



## Bung (Jun 13, 2011)

jamman said:


> OP *rinds* me of Rick out of the young ones, lots of words and no fucking idea what any of them mean.


And this post is full of intellectual content? How about you discuss the issue instead of attacking the poster with poorly thought out cheap shots.

Please feel free to explain to me as I'm so stupid, as to what it is that I don't understand.

But you're right about one thing, I don't know what the word rinds means apart from maybe what you get on bacon, perhaps you can give me the definition.


----------



## Skeee (Jun 9, 2009)

Spandex said:


> Are you saying that killing in the name of god is more outrageous than killing in the name of racism? It's an odd distinction to make... :?


 I would though!

To Quote Richard Dawkin quoting Steven Weinberg:-
I was reminded of a quotation by the famous American physicist Steven Weinberg, Nobel Prize-winning theoretical physicist. Weinberg said: "*Religion is an insult to human dignity. Without it, you'd have good people doing good things, and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, it takes religion*". (Part 2, 00:35:01)
From http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Richard_Dawkins


----------



## Skeee (Jun 9, 2009)

Bung said:


> jamman said:
> 
> 
> > OP *rinds* me of Rick out of the young ones, lots of words and no fucking idea what any of them mean.
> ...





Bung said:


> maybe what you get on bacon,  perhaps you can give me the definition.



Did someone mention Bacon?


----------



## jamman (May 6, 2002)

Bacon......Mmmmmmmm

I see 4 teenagers have just been arrested for the fire.


----------



## Spandex (Feb 20, 2009)

Skeee said:


> Spandex said:
> 
> 
> > Are you saying that killing in the name of god is more outrageous than killing in the name of racism? It's an odd distinction to make... :?
> ...


It's an entertaining quote to prove a point, but it's a bit contradictory seeing as no atheist would ever subscribe to the idea of 'good people' and 'evil people' in the first place.

So why is killing in the name of racism better than killing in the name of god? They're both just forms of intolerance and hatred. They're both symptomatic of the same flaws.


----------



## Skeee (Jun 9, 2009)

Spandex said:


> So why is killing in the name of racism better than killing in the name of god? They're both just forms of intolerance and hatred. They're both symptomatic of the same flaws.


 IMHO I would have to agree that both are equally bad.

Often the religious argument is just a cover for other motives of racism, and greed etc however many people who normally wouldn't consider themselves racist etc (the "good" perhaps from Weinberg's quote) are motivated and encouraged to follow the minority of bad (or "evil" from the quote) as these good genuinely believe they are fighting a just cause.


----------



## Skeee (Jun 9, 2009)

Spandex said:


> ............................................ no atheist would ever subscribe to the idea of 'good people' and 'evil people' in the first place.


 I don't agree at all.

For various motives many people seem willing to take advantage of others to the extreme that I feel they are "bad."

You don't need to be religious to be generous and caring of others.


----------



## Mark Davies (Apr 10, 2007)

Spandex said:


> It's an entertaining quote to prove a point, but it's a bit contradictory seeing as no atheist would ever subscribe to the idea of 'good people' and 'evil people' in the first place.


I disagree with that. I'm an atheist and I have seen plenty examples of people whom I would describe as either 'good' or 'evil'. Religion does not have a monopoly on the concept, though I accept they are terms more traditionally associated within a religious context. There is no doubt some people have a particularly selfish, vicious and unpleasant temperament. You might want to say they are just 'bad' but I have no difficulty in terming them 'evil' without assigning some religious connotation to it.

I think the point originally made by the OP is perfectly valid. He was simply pointing out a fact; when Lee Rigby was murdered there was outrage expressed on this forum (reflecting the response in wider society). Yet when someone commits an act that potentially could have killed many innocent children (who happen to be Muslim), that could resonably be presumed to have been retaliation for Lee Rigby's murder, we here (and generally in wider society) are relatively quiet about it. We are left to draw our own conclusions from that. Does our apparent lack of outrage suggest some kind of tacit approval?

And we will now get bunches of people expressing their outrage to prove they are not racist, but the fact still remains that nobody did it here until challenged about it. Is it enough of an excuse that nobody was killed in the fire? Well actually perhaps it is, and arguments along those lines would be a far more credible response than some of the outbutrsts we have seen so far.


----------



## Bung (Jun 13, 2011)

Mark Davies said:


> I think the point originally made by the OP is perfectly valid. He was simply pointing out a fact; when Lee Rigby was murdered there was outrage expressed on this forum (reflecting the response in wider society). Yet when someone commits an act that potentially could have killed many innocent children (who happen to be Muslim), that could resonably be presumed to have been retaliation for Lee Rigby's murder, we here (and generally in wider society) are relatively quiet about it. We are left to draw our own conclusions from that. Does our apparent lack of outrage suggest some kind of tacit approval?
> 
> And we will now get bunches of people expressing their outrage to prove they are not racist, but the fact still remains that nobody did it here until challenged about it. Is it enough of an excuse that nobody was killed in the fire? Well actually perhaps it is, and arguments along those lines would be a far more credible response than some of the outbutrsts we have seen so far.


Thank you Mark, a nice reasoned response as always.


----------



## Gazzer (Jun 12, 2010)

well tbh Mark i am morally offended that anyone would try to harm a whole school of kids, but after seeing it in america so many times now and even the odd ocassion here i feel slightly desensatised .......hmm maybe a wrong choice of word b ut you get the jist.


----------



## Bung (Jun 13, 2011)

jamman said:


> OP reminds me of Rick out of The Young Ones, lots of words and no fucking idea what any of them mean.
> 
> A lot of hot air opinions with very little substance and even less interest.
> 
> iPhone Edit


Nice edit by the way.

Again I ask, please direct me to where I have offered "hot air opinions" with no substance.
Your not so clever one liners really add nothing here.


----------



## Spandex (Feb 20, 2009)

Mark Davies said:


> Spandex said:
> 
> 
> > It's an entertaining quote to prove a point, but it's a bit contradictory seeing as no atheist would ever subscribe to the idea of 'good people' and 'evil people' in the first place.
> ...


It's not the notion of 'good and evil' that contradicts traditional atheist views, it's the idea that a *person *can be one or the other. That is a religious concept.

You may choose to describe someone as evil, but that's ultimately meaningless to anyone else but you - it's just an opinion. Their best friend may think of them as a good person who has just done some bad things. To assign universal judgements on peoples 'goodness', you need some sort of separate moral authority, which is why religion can do it but atheists can't, as they are their own moral authority.

People do good things and people do evil things. Most people do a bit of both.


----------



## Stevo Fife (Jan 6, 2013)

You have to wonder why people start threads like this. Is it really worth it?

Lack of attention as a child perhaps?


----------



## Bung (Jun 13, 2011)

Stevo Fife said:


> You have to wonder why people start threads like this. Is it really worth it?
> 
> Lack of attention as a child perhaps?


You also have to wonder why people make flippant comments like this.

Lack of intelligence as an adult perhaps.


----------



## Shug750S (Feb 6, 2012)

Funny how people have different views on religion.

In the barbers last week, guy cutting my hair is obviously from N.Africa / Middle East, warm and sunny, maybe Iraq, but I really couldn't care less, been going there a few years, okay haircut, and local to where I live.

Out of the blue he asks me what religion I am, and tells me he's an Iraqi Kurd, and a Muslim.

I reply, not really religious, couldn't care less about religion, too much strife in the world caused by religious fanatics. Each to their own, worship your own god in your own way, but keep It to yourself... Etc, etc
Boy, did he get confused. Just couldn't understand I didn't care.

He must have guessed I wasn't a Muslim, so why ask? And why get so stressed that I'm not at all religious?

Confused...


----------



## Skeee (Jun 9, 2009)

Kurds have had a very bad few decades so it's very important to him!
I equate it to the Basques where both French and Spanish don't recognise them so they kick up a fuss every now and then.
The Kurds live in the mountains between Turkey and Iraq.
More territorial than religious, in my opinion.


----------



## Skeee (Jun 9, 2009)

When someone stands very close behind you with a cut throat razor I usually listen attentively and often agree non confrontationally! :lol:


----------



## Gazzer (Jun 12, 2010)

Skeee said:


> Kurds have had a very bad few decades so it's very important to him!
> I equate it to the Basques where both French and Spanish don't recognise them so they kick up a fuss every now and then.
> The Kurds live in the mountains between Turkey and Iraq.
> More territorial than religious, in my opinion.


and don't forget fucked over by bush senior in first iraq war.


----------



## jamman (May 6, 2002)

Stevo Fife said:


> You have to wonder why people start threads like this. Is it really worth it?
> 
> Lack of attention as a child perhaps?


Often these type of threads can prove to be quite interesting but in the OPs case he just likes to argue with anybody that he can get involved as all his posts will attest. :wink:


----------



## Gazzer (Jun 12, 2010)

Shug750S said:


> Funny how people have different views on religion.
> 
> In the barbers last week, guy cutting my hair is obviously from N.Africa / Middle East, warm and sunny, maybe Iraq, but I really couldn't care less, been going there a few years, okay haircut, and local to where I live.
> 
> ...


maybe its the fact that they have religion at the very heart of their society that to hear you say you have none was very strange indeed. i wonder how many people in times of extreme grief actually say a prayer just in case there is a god somewhere?


----------



## Stevo Fife (Jan 6, 2013)

Bung said:


> Stevo Fife said:
> 
> 
> > You have to wonder why people start threads like this. Is it really worth it?
> ...


How you have the audacity to question ones intelligence speaks volumes.
Try looking in the mirror. I`m sure you`ll find all the attention you need.


----------



## Mark Davies (Apr 10, 2007)

Spandex said:


> It's not the notion of 'good and evil' that contradicts traditional atheist views, it's the idea that a *person *can be one or the other. That is a religious concept.
> 
> You may choose to describe someone as evil, but that's ultimately meaningless to anyone else but you - it's just an opinion. Their best friend may think of them as a good person who has just done some bad things. To assign universal judgements on peoples 'goodness', you need some sort of separate moral authority, which is why religion can do it but atheists can't, as they are their own moral authority.
> 
> People do good things and people do evil things. Most people do a bit of both.


You seem to be suggesting that people with religion have a monopoly on morality - which is a bit of a sleight to those who are atheists, don't you think? I don't see why you have to have your morality dictated to you by some externality for you to be able to classify someone's behaviour with the particular language of 'good' or 'evil'.

Regardless of whether I believe in a god or not I have no doubts that some people are just downright bad; absolutely rotten to the core, violent psychopaths. I have no hesitation describing those people as evil.

I think I understand where you are coming from; that the concept of evil is inextricably assosciated with religious doctrine. But I think it's a concept of a person's nature that we all understand regardless of our personal beliefs. It's just a word and for some people it is very appropriate - so as an atheist I have no problem using it to describe some people I know, and it describes them perfectly well.


----------



## Spandex (Feb 20, 2009)

Mark Davies said:


> Spandex said:
> 
> 
> > It's not the notion of 'good and evil' that contradicts traditional atheist views, it's the idea that a *person *can be one or the other. That is a religious concept.
> ...


Not at all. I don't believe morals don't have to be based on religion. I also understand that the word 'evil' can mean more than its religious definition. I'm not talking about the word itself, I'm talking about it being applied in a universal, absolute manner. I also have no problem with you describing people any way you want as this is just your opinion and it's up to you how you apply it.

What I have a problem with is the notion that there are 'good people' and 'evil people' as a universal concept. To me, that requires an external moral authority, as it goes beyond one persons opinion. That's why the quote makes no sense from an atheist point of view - it uses a religious view of the world (divided into either good or evil people) whilst trying to demonstrate that religion is wrong.


----------

