Homeless man takes TV channel staff hostage

[marknorthfield]

Ah yes, let's not empathise in any way with all those dark skinned people, hmmm? Unlike us, they're just a burden on the human race.

I don't care what colour their skin is. There's too many people of all races. If I am talking about a division here, then it is between rich and poor rather than white and non-white. And that is largely an accident of history.

I see myself as a bit of an outsider too, but I don't use that as an excuse to condemn people to sterilisation or death in countries I have never visited, particularly considering the size of the average carbon footprint here in the west. 'Stinking human babies' is a particularly unpleasant and demeaning little phrase.

The MSM is unwilling to discuss population rise as an issue because it rarely fits neatly into the confines of any given news 'article', and any possible measures to slow that rise (widespread sex education and contraceptive distribution, female empowerment etc) are somewhat more difficult to achieve globally than an agreement on reducing carbon emissions (and we all know how difficult THAT one is).

Sure, we're animals with an instinctive need to survive and, in many cases, pass on our genes. Stop the press! However, we can also use our modest intelligence to analyse, communicate and educate more effectively than any other animal on the planet: that is where any limited hope for the future lies, and is - not coincidentally - where the best aspects of humanity can be found. They won't be found in some sick fantasy about the less deserving dying off as quickly as possible to preserve our unsustainable way of life for that little bit longer. Yeah, increased conflict is inevitable, but bloody hell, don't be a cheerleader for it!

I think you've misunderstood where I am coming from. I'm really not a white supremacist who expects people in the rich countries can maintain their standard of living whilst the poor starve to death. Our standard of living is also going to take a beating, and nobody (MSM, politicians) is preparing people for it.

Lastly, you surely don't imagine that Africa and Asia are entirely detached from the West, beyond us giving aid, do you? No useful resources of any kind that we might (continue to) need? No chance that we might need their help at some point in the future, and that past behaviour would be brought to bear? I'd say that's fairly fundamental.

Actually, I suspect that global trade on anything like the scale we know it today is also heading for the history books. At the moment it is still economical to ship vast quantities of raw materials and consumer goods all over the planet. In 20 years time I rather suspect that we will be re-opening abandoned British mining operations and actually making clothes in the UK. Imagine that! A British textile industry!

Maybe it was the idea of moving on one step from privatisation (a la the IMF) to sterilisation in return for foreign assistance. Maybe it was the idea of punishing people whose level of consumption is so very inconsequential compared to ours, even as climate change helps to devastate their landscape and/or ruin their harvest. Maybe it was the fact that the trade game has been rigged in our favour for so long (with the help of a little military diplomacy here and there) and yet you claim to be 'emotionally completely detached' at the sight of starving people.

Accidents of history? (Goes to find tea so that he can splutter some out...) You mean, the way certain areas discovered fossil fuels first and have been driving home the advantage pretty much ever since?

For what it's worth, I take what you say at face value and don't believe you're any more racist than I, but I think it entirely possible for rational people to, in the face of a perceived threat to their future prosperity, let animal instincts ride over their humanity. By humanity, of course, I mean the ability to empathise, to ensure that others do not lack basic essentials as long as there is the means to provide them, to share knowledge, to seek to narrow that gap between rich and poor, most especially where our own actions have previously exacerbated it.

Yes, our standard of living is going to take a beating, but maybe we'll start to realise how much 'wealth' there is in who we are and how we relate to one another than in what we own; not necessarily a bad thing. Yes, we will (hopefully) become much more self-sufficient in some things than we have been in recent times. No, I don't see why either of these things should prevent us from helping people who will almost certainly still have much less than we do, and who in many cases will be paying a higher immediate price for our carbon habit. If the human race wants to continue to 'progress' in any meaningful way in the post-growth era, we should not shirk from the challenge.

So yeah... Maybe it was the 'No point in trying to save them. In many cases they are better off dead anyway.' which sealed the misunderstanding. What do you want, a roving Dignitas clinic for every region suffering a major flood or crop failure? How else should I have interpreted that statement?

[2 As and a B]

I basically agree with the James Lee.

Would that be related to the Robert E Lee?

Lots of people are going to have to die.

Actually, I think you'll find that everyone is going to die.

[the_lyniezian]

Disagree all you want, but people who deny the right of a woman to choose what she does and loudly proclaim that contraception is just as bad as abortion, in their eyes it's all a from of infanticide, are crazy. Why? Because they are blinded by a doctrine from a time when the human race was capable of increasing it's population size, most importantly the population of their particular religion. In most cases, it was a sanction from the church so they could reap a higher tithe.

Population size ought to have no effect on the permissability of abortion, because frankly, I see little reason why it cannot be classed as the taking of a human life. Even a newborn infant, let alone a foetus, is either independent or fullly developed metally (neither self-aware or able to flly use its senses yet), yet these are arguments used to suppose a foetus at a certain stage is less-than-fully human. It's therefore no better than, say, euthanising the elderly and incapable who are no longer of sound mind, against their prior will. And of all things there are better means of birth control out there.

I would however agree that there are those taking certain Bible verses (about children being a blessing from the Lord, &c.) to heart, without thought to the context of the time- yes, children can be a blessing, but the era when a large offspring was needed (not simply to extract more tithes for the religious bodies [not the 'church' as it's Old Testament], but for survival- every pair of hands you had to work the land, fight in war, provide for you in old age was probably an asset, and many children died young to boot) is to some degree past, and the population size of the world was nowhere near the maximum sustainable limit.

The usual memes of woman's-right-to-choose and religion-is-a-tool-for-the-powerful seem to be sadly present here. In the former case, the right of the foetus to life is greater the right of the woman to live her life as she wishes- I would make exceptions if her life is jeopardised, at least, maybe other serious medical reasons at the most. In the latter case, it's not always true (if often it has occurred in history) and there were good reasons for encouraging large families in the ancient past as I outlined before.

By making abortion illegal, which they want to do, it won't stop any abortions. Just look at Ireland as an example, Catholic girls coming over to the UK to have abortions. It will also bring back "back street" abortion clinics which are far more likely to be extremely dangerous to the health of the mother.

Statistics I've seen actually put the (estimated) number of abortions as vastly increasing since it was legalised in the Uk in the late 60s. You also have to remember that the situation with the Irish is only becuase it is unique in most European nations, and it has a neighbour which is easily accessible by virtue of being in the EU with relative freedom of cross-boder movement.

Backstreet abortions in the old days were probably, as I suggested, comparatively rare, and no law is perfectly enforcable, especially when there are desperate peope around. But then, there is much less stigma asociated with out-of-wedlock pregancies as there used to be, so the occurrances will probalby be lower than in the old days.

Personally, I'm not entirely in favour of abortions because of the effect they tend to have on the psychology of the woman in question.

Which is what many who are more strong opposed to abortion recognise, and wish to seek to prevent.

I'd like to see better information and contraception education provided in schools and society in general. Compare the statistics for unwanted pregnancies in the USA and UK with those of Europe, where sex isn't a taboo subject. There's no mystery to entice teenagers to experiment without being fully cognizant of the potential problems.

I hardly think sex is much of a mystery to the average teenager these days- it's fairly open and is everywhere in the media, despite what parental controls might be in place. Perhaps if there is anything in the culture in the Anglosphere, it is that we have certain 'hang-ups' when it comes to talking about sex, and whilst that might have been fine in the days when social stigma was attached to inappropriate sexual liasons, less so now.

In fact I think it is the amount of over-sexualisation in the media which probably does a lot to promote irresponsible sexual habits- it glorifies it.

Information and contraception education is not always enough- what about developing mature attitudes in the young when it comes to sexual activity? I would also suggest that includes the ideal of restraint, leaving sex to the context of a committed relationship, not just casual flings &c. (I don't just mean the usual 'don't do it' type abstainance message.)

When talking about the American anti-abortionists, they have in the past behaved just as badly as the average Brownshirt: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-abortion_violence

I judge people on their behaviour. While I am sure Mr. Roff has never been involved in that kind of nastiness, I'm pretty sure from his comments that he tacitly supports it. Given your obvious support of Mr Roff, I can only come to the conclusion that you do too. Which is absolutely typical of the hypocrisy I have come to expect from Evangelical Christians in particular, and the vast majority of Christianity in general (bar a few souls who really have understood what Jesus was talking about).

This is the sort of argument I wish to counter. In no way am I either supporting Roff or those who wish to resort to violence to further their ends. not only aresuch occurrances unlawful, but run counter to all Christian teachng I have come across. My whole point was to argue that just because someone is an anti-abortionist, doesn't mean they agree with right-wing hardliner commentators, nor that either necessarily agree with the crazies who use violence. (I'm not sure what precisely Mr. Roff has said that makes you suppose he supports violent protest or reprisal?)

Nor am I too sure of what you suppose Jesus 'actually' meant, though I do realise there are plenty who genuinely do miss the point, even supposed 'evangelicals', but not all.

It is predominantly the fault of Christian doctrine that the poorest and lest educated parts of the world, like Africa and Central/Southern America has the population problems it does. Preaching that by using contraception you'll suffer eternal damnation (which is interesting as so far I haven't come across a single reference to it in any part of the Bible) to ill educated people is NOT the Word of God, it is the Word of (Hu)Man.

This is largely the teachings of the Catholic church, not Evangelicals, so little wonder it's not in the Bible as they hold 'Sacred Tradition' with the same regard as Scripture; we don't. Only a small number of evangelicals have any problem with contraception. We stick to the Bible- tradition is at best a fallible guide and largely the ideas of men.

Anyway, I think it best if we agree to disagree, as I have no desire to get into an argument that will be circular and has the potential to get extremely nasty. I also hope that you don't take my views as an attack on you personally. They are not, I just have a very large problem with Christianity and what it has become not what it is (if that distinction makes any sense ).

Yes, it makes sense, though I dare say where we draw the line is different.

All I'm asking at the end of the day is that you do not tar people with the same brush, and having the anti-abortion viewpoint and being a right-wing extremist, American-style are not mutually inclusive. And I hope I might at least respond to your counter-arguments this once, leaving it beyond that.

[syberberg]

Disagree all you want, but people who deny the right of a woman to choose what she does and loudly proclaim that contraception is just as bad as abortion, in their eyes it's all a from of infanticide, are crazy. Why? Because they are blinded by a doctrine from a time when the human race was capable of increasing it's population size, most importantly the population of their particular religion. In most cases, it was a sanction from the church so they could reap a higher tithe.

Population size ought to have no effect on the permissability of abortion, because frankly, I see little reason why it cannot be classed as the taking of a human life. Even a newborn infant, let alone a foetus, is either independent or fullly developed metally (neither self-aware or able to flly use its senses yet), yet these are arguments used to suppose a foetus at a certain stage is less-than-fully human. It's therefore no better than, say, euthanising the elderly and incapable who are no longer of sound mind, against their prior will. And of all things there are better means of birth control out there.

I would however agree that there are those taking certain Bible verses (about children being a blessing from the Lord, &c.) to heart, without thought to the context of the time- yes, children can be a blessing, but the era when a large offspring was needed (not simply to extract more tithes for the religious bodies [not the 'church' as it's Old Testament], but for survival- every pair of hands you had to work the land, fight in war, provide for you in old age was probably an asset, and many children died young to boot) is to some degree past, and the population size of the world was nowhere near the maximum sustainable limit.

The usual memes of woman's-right-to-choose and religion-is-a-tool-for-the-powerful seem to be sadly present here. In the former case, the right of the foetus to life is greater the right of the woman to live her life as she wishes- I would make exceptions if her life is jeopardised, at least, maybe other serious medical reasons at the most. In the latter case, it's not always true (if often it has occurred in history) and there were good reasons for encouraging large families in the ancient past as I outlined before.

By making abortion illegal, which they want to do, it won't stop any abortions. Just look at Ireland as an example, Catholic girls coming over to the UK to have abortions. It will also bring back "back street" abortion clinics which are far more likely to be extremely dangerous to the health of the mother.

Statistics I've seen actually put the (estimated) number of abortions as vastly increasing since it was legalised in the Uk in the late 60s. You also have to remember that the situation with the Irish is only becuase it is unique in most European nations, and it has a neighbour which is easily accessible by virtue of being in the EU with relative freedom of cross-boder movement.

Backstreet abortions in the old days were probably, as I suggested, comparatively rare, and no law is perfectly enforcable, especially when there are desperate peope around. But then, there is much less stigma asociated with out-of-wedlock pregancies as there used to be, so the occurrances will probalby be lower than in the old days.

Personally, I'm not entirely in favour of abortions because of the effect they tend to have on the psychology of the woman in question.

Which is what many who are more strong opposed to abortion recognise, and wish to seek to prevent.

I'd like to see better information and contraception education provided in schools and society in general. Compare the statistics for unwanted pregnancies in the USA and UK with those of Europe, where sex isn't a taboo subject. There's no mystery to entice teenagers to experiment without being fully cognizant of the potential problems.

I hardly think sex is much of a mystery to the average teenager these days- it's fairly open and is everywhere in the media, despite what parental controls might be in place. Perhaps if there is anything in the culture in the Anglosphere, it is that we have certain 'hang-ups' when it comes to talking about sex, and whilst that might have been fine in the days when social stigma was attached to inappropriate sexual liasons, less so now.

In fact I think it is the amount of over-sexualisation in the media which probably does a lot to promote irresponsible sexual habits- it glorifies it.

Information and contraception education is not always enough- what about developing mature attitudes in the young when it comes to sexual activity? I would also suggest that includes the ideal of restraint, leaving sex to the context of a committed relationship, not just casual flings &c. (I don't just mean the usual 'don't do it' type abstainance message.)

When talking about the American anti-abortionists, they have in the past behaved just as badly as the average Brownshirt: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-abortion_violence

I judge people on their behaviour. While I am sure Mr. Roff has never been involved in that kind of nastiness, I'm pretty sure from his comments that he tacitly supports it. Given your obvious support of Mr Roff, I can only come to the conclusion that you do too. Which is absolutely typical of the hypocrisy I have come to expect from Evangelical Christians in particular, and the vast majority of Christianity in general (bar a few souls who really have understood what Jesus was talking about).

This is the sort of argument I wish to counter. In no way am I either supporting Roff or those who wish to resort to violence to further their ends. not only aresuch occurrances unlawful, but run counter to all Christian teachng I have come across. My whole point was to argue that just because someone is an anti-abortionist, doesn't mean they agree with right-wing hardliner commentators, nor that either necessarily agree with the crazies who use violence. (I'm not sure what precisely Mr. Roff has said that makes you suppose he supports violent protest or reprisal?)

Nor am I too sure of what you suppose Jesus 'actually' meant, though I do realise there are plenty who genuinely do miss the point, even supposed 'evangelicals', but not all.

It is predominantly the fault of Christian doctrine that the poorest and lest educated parts of the world, like Africa and Central/Southern America has the population problems it does. Preaching that by using contraception you'll suffer eternal damnation (which is interesting as so far I haven't come across a single reference to it in any part of the Bible) to ill educated people is NOT the Word of God, it is the Word of (Hu)Man.

This is largely the teachings of the Catholic church, not Evangelicals, so little wonder it's not in the Bible as they hold 'Sacred Tradition' with the same regard as Scripture; we don't. Only a small number of evangelicals have any problem with contraception. We stick to the Bible- tradition is at best a fallible guide and largely the ideas of men.

Anyway, I think it best if we agree to disagree, as I have no desire to get into an argument that will be circular and has the potential to get extremely nasty. I also hope that you don't take my views as an attack on you personally. They are not, I just have a very large problem with Christianity and what it has become not what it is (if that distinction makes any sense ).

Yes, it makes sense, though I dare say where we draw the line is different.

All I'm asking at the end of the day is that you do not tar people with the same brush, and having the anti-abortion viewpoint and being a right-wing extremist, American-style are not mutually inclusive. And I hope I might at least respond to your counter-arguments this once, leaving it beyond that.

Fair enough and very well said from beginning to end.

I sense you may well be someone with whom it is possible to have reasoned theological debate, rather than a screaming argument.

One thing I would like to say: I fully respect your faith and the strength of it, even if I disagree with your beliefs. I have no intention what-so-ever, now or in the future, of ever challenging or questioning your faith, but I will question your beliefs (and anyone else's, including mine from time to time). Hopefully in a manner that clearly shows that I do so out of a desire to understand and find common ground, not destroy. I'll try and remember to point out if I'm playing devil's advocate too, but I do have the occasional memory lapse.

[Arowx]

Do people really need to starve, apparently there are about 1 billion obese people and about 1 billion starving people, now all we have to do is figure out how to transfer the calories from one to the other?

What about enforced liposuction based on body fat percentage, and soylent yellow bars as international aid?

[Arowx]

Someone earlier was refering to how we should not care about the starving people of the world or people impacted by disaster.

I disagree with their viewpoint on a number of levels but...

Now I wonder if they care about the potential much more personal impacts of terrorism, and realise that if the wealthy do not help the poor then that can set the stage for seeds of anger, resentment and hatred to flurish, seeds from which terrorist organisations can harvest recruits.

Or put more simply withought more love there is more room for hate!

[kenneal - lagger]

Someone earlier was refering to how we should not care about the starving people of the world or people impacted by disaster.

I disagree with their viewpoint on a number of levels but...

Now I wonder if they care about the potential much more personal impacts of terrorism, and realise that if the wealthy do not help the poor then that can set the stage for seeds of anger, resentment and hatred to flurish, seeds from which terrorist organisations can harvest recruits.

Or put more simply withought more love there is more room for hate!

I don't think terrorism is the only, nor the worse, problem. Mass migration could be a greater problem. We are seeing the beginnings of it now with the queue at Calais for illicit lorry places and boat people coming across the Med and into the Canaries. The current trickle would become a flood if food supply get worse in the Third World.

Some people are advocating cutting the Aid budget as part of the government's cutbacks. That would be one of the most costly things we could ever do. It's far cheaper to look after people in their own country at that standard of living than it is to bring them here and accustom them to our standard of living.

[Lord Beria3]

I don't think terrorism is the only, nor the worse, problem. Mass migration could be a greater problem. We are seeing the beginnings of it now with the queue at Calais for illicit lorry places and boat people coming across the Med and into the Canaries. The current trickle would become a flood if food supply get worse in the Third World.

Some people are advocating cutting the Aid budget as part of the government's cutbacks. That would be one of the most costly things we could ever do. It's far cheaper to look after people in their own country at that standard of living than it is to bring them here and accustom them to our standard of living.

Its a myth that poverty leads to terrorism, Osama bin ladin was the offspring of a Saudi billionaire and many radical Muslims come from educated middle class background.

In fact, poverty is the best counter-terrorism strategy, because people are too busy surviving to care about Palestinians or other radical nonsence.

Regarding aid, most is wasted, we would be better of scrapping most of it, and using the saved money reducing taxes and spending more on defence.

[syberberg]

Its a myth that poverty leads to terrorism, Osama bin ladin was the offspring of a Saudi billionaire and many radical Muslims come from educated middle class background.

In fact, poverty is the best counter-terrorism strategy, because people are too busy surviving to care about Palestinians or other radical nonsence.

Regarding aid, most is wasted, we would be better of scrapping most of it, and using the saved money reducing taxes and spending more on defence.

Slightly incorrect. The radical leaders are well educated, usually lesser sons of wealthy families who will inherit far less than their elder male siblings. They then go on to recruit and exploit the poorest and most disenfranchised of the male Muslim population, who have no/limited access to the outside world and are easily manipulated into believing that all of their problems are caused by the West, America in particular.

Propaganda - Everybody got theirs, I want mine.

[Lord Beria3]

One of my friends at halls was a radical Muslim, a great guy, and he was a educated guy from a middle class Muslim family.

There is very little connection between poverty and terrorism.

[sweat]

One of my friends at halls was a radical Muslim, a great guy, and he was a educated guy from a middle class Muslim family.

There is very little connection between poverty and terrorism.

I'm glad you cleared the issue up with that overwhelming evidence!

The poor and disenfranchised are certainly the likeliest to become terrorists and pawns to whatever the people leading them's agenda is.

[kenneal - lagger]

One of my friends at halls was a radical Muslim, a great guy, and he was a educated guy from a middle class Muslim family.

There is very little connection between poverty and terrorism.

Maybe not in this country, but in the Middle East there is.