# British General Election 2017 Results Discussion



## TheDarkGreninja (Jun 10, 2017)

With our general election over I thought I'd ask some of the brits (and anyone else who's been following it) what they thought of the results.
Of which, you can find here.


----------



## queendude (Jun 10, 2017)

Scotland Clearly wants independence lol


----------



## MionissNio (Jun 10, 2017)

Deport all Muslims is prolly what most are thinking.


----------



## fatherjack (Jun 10, 2017)

queendude said:


> Scotland Clearly wants independence lol


Yeah....SNP had the biggest nightmare of the lot.
But what really kills me is the British TV coverage of the results - has anybody told them Labour didn't win?


----------



## proflayton123 (Jun 10, 2017)

The results.. hmm, tories and the DUP joining up together.. 

http://metro.co.uk/2017/06/10/what-...ean-for-the-lgbt-community-in-the-uk-6699460/ - have a read of this, mostly saddens me out of all of it personally


----------



## Vipera (Jun 10, 2017)

England is crazy to be pushing Scotland to independence. Scotland will still be part of the EU and get all the benefits, while England will be left alone. It's 2017, you can't really be a competitive first world country alone.


----------



## FAST6191 (Jun 10, 2017)

I continued my usual policy of not voting, this despite being out with the dog and walking past about 4 polling stations I think (close enough to scare the exit poll/last minute swaying people). A surprisingly high turnout though.



proflayton123 said:


> The results.. hmm, tories and the DUP joining up together..
> 
> http://metro.co.uk/2017/06/10/what-...ean-for-the-lgbt-community-in-the-uk-6699460/ - have a read of this, mostly saddens me out of all of it personally


Huh, I tend not to read the metro as much as have it prevent my arse from being cold when stuck waiting for a train out of London but the times I glimpsed articles in it would not lead me to bet on an article like that coming out of them.
Anyway while such a position on the matters discussed is the position of a cunt at the same time I am not seeing a regression going to happen on any of those. They are there, they are done, as far as I am aware there are no options for a review in ? years, much less one they could scupper. Or if you prefer remember the last coalition and what when there, or indeed what didn't, and this is little other than a numbers game at this point rather than anything resembling a melding of parties.

The most amusing handwaving stuff to me is Scotland with it comes to conservatives. Most places seem happy to talk about the SNP losses but then bundle everywhere for the conservatives in what could be an effort to downplay losses in parts. That said it is what it is and west lothian question aside is a valid way to look at things.


----------



## Saiyan Lusitano (Jun 10, 2017)

UK is screwed either way, whether with May or Corbyn. Things aren't going to get any better.


----------



## queendude (Jun 10, 2017)

Saiyan Lusitano said:


> UK is screwed either way, whether with May or Corbyn. Things aren't going to get any better.


exactly lol 
look at the miserable currency called "Pound sterling" that is, since Brexit, falling like a plane


----------



## G0R3Z (Jun 10, 2017)

I'm not best pleased at who they've partnered with. The DUP are extremist, anti-abortion, anti-LGBT and have had links to Terror in the past. I don't think of their policies will ever pass anyway.


----------



## Depravo (Jun 10, 2017)

Current status:


----------



## Saiyan Lusitano (Jun 10, 2017)

queendude said:


> exactly lol
> look at the miserable currency called "Pound sterling" that is, since Brexit, falling like a plane


Brexit was supposed to be a means to leave the EU in order to improve UK but Brexit is completely insignificant now.

GBP £1.00 = 1,14€ EUR
GBP £1.00 = $1.27 USD

Not good, not at all.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



Depravo said:


> Current status:


May's Conservative party is only "Conservative" in name because anything else... nope.


----------



## bi388 (Jun 10, 2017)

Saiyan Lusitano said:


> May's Conservative party is only "Conservative" in name because anything else... nope.


Correct me if im wrong, but i think its more the US that's off from the rest of the world. Germany's conservative government would be attacked by the US right for its social policies, and being conservative in france basically just means you're a centrist.


----------



## Saiyan Lusitano (Jun 10, 2017)

bi388 said:


> Correct me if im wrong, but i think its more the US that's off from the rest of the world. Germany's conservative government would be attacked by the US right for its social policies, and being conservative in france basically just means you're a centrist.


If they have different beliefs/values then they shouldn't call themselves Conservatives or etc, it's misleading and gives bad rep for people of those values. I'm a Conservative. I.e., someone who believes in respect, equality, fairness, peacefulness of all people within the same country. I'm against military on foreign countries but I can't do anything about it.


----------



## TheDarkGreninja (Jun 10, 2017)

MionissNio said:


> Deport all Muslims is prolly what most are thinking.


Probably not seeing as how UKIP lost 13% of the vote.


fatherjack said:


> Yeah....SNP had the biggest nightmare of the lot.
> But what really kills me is the British TV coverage of the results - has anybody told them Labour didn't win?


They won more seats than they lost in comparison to the conservatives, there was no way they were going to become the government but they definitely gave the Conservatives a run for their money, a run that they failed, by the way.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



Depravo said:


> Current status:



I would consider having to join forces with terrorist sympathisers, a major failure of our PM.


----------



## spotanjo3 (Jun 10, 2017)

I don't bother with the political for they are corruption.


----------



## Saiyan Lusitano (Jun 10, 2017)

MionissNio said:


> Deport all Muslims is prolly what most are thinking.


If that were to happen, it would cause multiple civil wars in UK which is bound to seeing how things are. France, Germany and Sweden are in the same situation.


----------



## TheDarkGreninja (Jun 10, 2017)

Saiyan Lusitano said:


> May's Conservative party is only "Conservative" in name because anything else... nope.



Conservatives in our country are much closer to the centre. Conservatives in America are comparable to UKIP in the UK.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



Saiyan Lusitano said:


> If that were to happen, it would cause multiple civil wars in UK which is bound to seeing how things are. France, Germany and Sweden are in the same situation.


Civil wars? Between who exactly? You do know the population of Muslims in Europe is 3%, right?


----------



## Saiyan Lusitano (Jun 10, 2017)

TheDarkGreninja said:


> Civil wars? Between who exactly, you do know the population of Muslims in Europe is 3% right?


Between the millions of Muslims and the couple of Brits still living. It's a lost battle. The Brits have lost their country.


----------



## bi388 (Jun 10, 2017)

Saiyan Lusitano said:


> If they have different beliefs/values then they shouldn't call themselves Conservatives or etc, it's misleading and gives bad rep for people of those values. I'm a Conservative. I.e., someone who believes in respect, equality, fairness, peacefulness of all people within the same country. I'm against military on foreign countries but I can't do anything about it.


I dont think its possible to define either conservatives or liberals as for respect, equality, fairness and peacefulness in general at this point. Its pretty clear both sides of the political spectrum have leaders in the U.S. who are perfectly happy to disrespect people with differing opinions, take away others rights or fuck the system to cheat their way to the top.


----------



## TheDarkGreninja (Jun 10, 2017)

Saiyan Lusitano said:


> Between the millions of Muslims and the couple of Brits still living. It's a lost battle. The Brits have lost their country.



Damn, you're clueless arent you?
*Islam* is the second largest religion in the United Kingdom, with results from the United Kingdom Census 2011 giving the UK Muslim population in 2011 as 2,786,635, 4.4% of the total population.[2] 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_in_the_United_Kingdom


----------



## Saiyan Lusitano (Jun 10, 2017)

TheDarkGreninja said:


> Damn, you're clueless arent you?
> *Islam* is the second largest religion in the United Kingdom, with results from the United Kingdom Census 2011 giving the UK Muslim population in 2011 as 2,786,635, 4.4% of the total population.[2]
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_in_the_United_Kingdom


And that's why UK will become a Islamic country ultimately.


----------



## TheDarkGreninja (Jun 10, 2017)

bi388 said:


> I dont think its possible to define either conservatives or liberals as for respect, equality, fairness and peacefulness in general at this point. Its pretty clear both sides of the political spectrum have leaders in the U.S. who are perfectly happy to disrespect people with differing opinions, take away others rights or fuck the system to cheat their way to the top.


And that is why centrism is the best way of life. Everything in moderation.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



Saiyan Lusitano said:


> And that's why UK will become a Islamic country ultimately.


Yeah because 4.4% of the population can overthrow the other 95.6%, you must be a troll. There is no way anyone with a hint of rationality could suggest that.
The country is more at risk of becoming atheist/agnostic seeing as how the population of those guys is 25%.


----------



## Aurora Wright (Jun 10, 2017)

TheDarkGreninja said:


> The country is more at risk of becoming atheist/agnostic seeing as how the population of those guys is 25%.


That's a really good risk


----------



## Quantumcat (Jun 10, 2017)

Saiyan Lusitano said:


> I'm a Conservative. I.e., someone who believes in respect, equality, fairness, peacefulness of all people within the same country. I'm against military on foreign countries but I can't do anything about it.


Are you sure you're a conservative?  Equality for all people (ie welfare, universal medical care, leaving other countries in peace etc) are usually liberal values (not to be confused with Australia's "Liberal Party" which is actually conservative). Conservatives typically are anti-gay, anti-abortion, pro-small government, pro-tax cuts to the rich, pro-big business, etc.


----------



## FAST6191 (Jun 10, 2017)

Saiyan Lusitano said:


> I'm a Conservative. I.e., someone who believes in respect, equality, fairness, peacefulness of all people within the same country.



Are there any vaguely viable political parties that would not claim such values, and indeed of the more edge case ones then how many of those would claim they seek that for a, at least theoretically, maligned group within a country?


----------



## TheDarkGreninja (Jun 10, 2017)

Aurora Wright said:


> That's a really good risk



I would disagree (with atheism being the truth, no issues with people thinking it) but after all it's a choice that must be respected.


----------



## Aurora Wright (Jun 10, 2017)

TheDarkGreninja said:


> I would disagree (with atheism being the truth, no issues with people thinking it) but after all it's a choice that must be respected.


I think from a social point of view lack of organized religion (nothing against spirituality in itself) is better, since organized religion is often used as a way to control people and put them against one another, often pushes to get religious dogmas into law (see the catholic church here in Italy as a prime example), and so on


----------



## bi388 (Jun 10, 2017)

Aurora Wright said:


> I think from a social point of view lack of organized religion (nothing against spirituality in itself) is better, since organized religion is often used as a way to control people and put them against one another, often pushes to get religious dogmas into law (see the catholic church here in Italy as a prime example), and so on


Religion is really a mixed bag. On one hand, it is used all the time to control, brainwash, excuse acts of terrorism, etc but on the other, if done right, it can create amazing communities, lead people towards good moral values and make a positive impact on the world. However, I think nations having an official religion is horrible, and its pretty shocking so many major nations still do.


----------



## TheDarkGreninja (Jun 10, 2017)

Aurora Wright said:


> I think from a social point of view lack of organized religion (nothing against spirituality in itself) is better, since organized religion is often used as a way to control people and put them against one another, often pushes to get religious dogmas into law (see the catholic church here in Italy as a prime example), and so on



Well that's on a religion by religion basis.

Any ideology could be used to control and manipulate people. Take, for example, Hitler who used his Anti-Jew rhetoric and his Nazi ideology, he used that to manipulate the German people and kill 9 million innocent lives, was that his Christian beliefs or his Nazi ideology?
No offence, but to suggest that religion is only ever used to get other people to kill others is ignorant of all the good religion has done in the past. If not for the Islamic Caliphates centuries ago, the majority of Aristotle's work would've been burnt away, this is just one of many cases where a religion saved something, in this case the culture and works of the Ancient Greeks who were denounced by the Catholic church at the time.

Islam is more of a way of life than Christianity is, so I can only really speak from experience in saying that not all religious dogma is evil and oppressive. One must also consider that humanity is inherently a violent species if we have anything against each other we'll use whatever beliefs at our disposal to fight each other. Only in the last century did Mao Zedong kill more people than Christianity and Islam *combined*.

Edit: Forgot to mention this, but look at the politics of western nations, people hate each other because of their political views, and will call them names based on them, just even more, evidence than any ideology leads to hate.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



bi388 said:


> Religion is really a mixed bag. On one hand, it is used all the time to control, brainwash, excuse acts of terrorism, etc but on the other, if done right, it can create amazing communities, lead people towards good moral values and make a positive impact on the world. However, *I think nations having an official religion is horrible*, and its pretty shocking so many major nations still do.



Why, exactly? I can see it being an issue if the majority of the population do not follow it.


----------



## Quantumcat (Jun 10, 2017)

What happened to gbatemp??


----------



## Ikki Barri (Jun 10, 2017)

snip


----------



## bi388 (Jun 10, 2017)

TheDarkGreninja said:


> Why, exactly? I can see it being an issue if the majority of the population do not follow it.


Not having an official religion promotes free thought, whereas if your country tells you something, youre far more likely to grow up believing what they tell you just because it is your country. I think every government should be secular, not religious or atheist, because I view anything else as essentially brainwashing. Some people in America even do this despite us not having an official religion, saying things like "america is a christian nation, if you dont believe in god go away" or things like that. Many nations even execute people for not following their religion, and while the first world countries are obviously not this extreme, it really rubs me the wrong way for a government to endorse one religion.


----------



## TheDarkGreninja (Jun 10, 2017)

bi388 said:


> Not having an official religion promotes free thought, whereas if your country tells you something, youre far more likely to grow up believing what they tell you just because it is your country. I think every government should be secular, not religious or atheist, because I view anything else as essentially brainwashing. Some people in America even do this despite us not having an official religion, saying things like "america is a christian nation, if you dont believe in god go away" or things like that. Many nations even execute people for not following their religion, and while the first world countries are obviously not this extreme, it really rubs me the wrong way for a government to endorse one religion.



This argument is made obsolete if the government promotes freedom of religion/ lack of. Of course, your argument is otherwise correct.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



Quantumcat said:


> What happened to gbatemp??
> View attachment 89606


You can go back to the old tempstyle by going to the bottom and clicking tempstyle 2.


----------



## bi388 (Jun 10, 2017)

TheDarkGreninja said:


> This argument is made obsolete if the government promotes freedom of religion/ lack of. Of course, your argument is otherwise correct.


Then whats the point of even having an official religion? It still rubs me as propaganda and brainwashing, but I guess im probably lacking first hand experience.


----------



## Aurora Wright (Jun 10, 2017)

bi388 said:


> Religion is really a mixed bag. On one hand, it is used all the time to control, brainwash, excuse acts of terrorism, etc but on the other, if done right, it can create amazing communities, lead people towards good moral values and make a positive impact on the world. However, I think nations having an official religion is horrible, and its pretty shocking so many major nations still do.


Yes I agree that religion/spirituality can have a bonding purpose. However dogmas and organization (hierarchies with clergy and the like) aren't really needed for this to be the case. As I said, I have nothing against the spirituality in itself.
Also, while it's true that not all dogmas are socially "bad", there's a non-religious explanation for those. As an example, if we take "you must not kill", this moral value (which was also put into law pretty much everywhere) exists because without it, society would collapse, so it's agreed upon that people need not to do that and that it's "wrong".


TheDarkGreninja said:


> No offence, but to suggest that religion is only ever used to get other people to kill others is ignorant of all the good religion has done in the past. If not for the Islamic Caliphates centuries ago, the majority of Aristotle's work would've been burnt away, this is just one of many cases where a religion saved something, in this case the culture and works of the Ancient Greeks who were denounced by the Catholic church at the time.
> 
> Islam is more of a way of life than Christianity is, so I can only really speak from experience in saying that not all religious dogma is evil and oppressive. One must also consider that humanity is inherently a violent species if we have anything against each other we'll use whatever beliefs at our disposal to fight each other. Only in the last century did Mao Zedong kill more people than Christianity and Islam *combined*.


I don't deny that organized religion was very important to keep society together in the past, or that it did good things. I just think that, _today_, that importance is lessening more and more (the increasing amounts of non religious people suggests that this is the case) and that nowadays it does more harm than good to society. I also never said that organized religion is the only way to control people (as you said political ideologies can too as an example), but it's a very effective one.


TheDarkGreninja said:


> Edit: Forgot to mention this, but look at the politics of western nations, people hate each other because of their political views, and will call them names based on them, just even more, evidence than any ideology leads to hate.


Not sure what you're referring to with this, but if it's socially conservative ideas (and people who believe in those), like being against LGBT rights and stuff, I "hate" them because they worsen people's lives for no reason and I think society should guarantee the highest happiness to its members.
I don't think ideas should be called "political" when they have such a direct impact on people


----------



## TheDarkGreninja (Jun 10, 2017)

bi388 said:


> Then whats the point of even having an official religion? It still rubs me as propaganda and brainwashing, but I guess im probably lacking first hand experience.



To represent what the majority of the people's beliefs are.



Aurora Wright said:


> I just think that, _today_, that importance is lessening more and more (the increasing amounts of non religious people suggests that this is the case) and that nowadays it does more harm than good to society.



I don't know about that. Seeing as how most of our morals, whether you like it or not, come from religious beliefs of the past. 



Aurora Wright said:


> Not sure what you're referring to with this, but if it's socially conservative ideas (and people who believe in those), like being against LGBT rights and stuff, I "hate" them because they worsen people's lives for no reason and I think society should guarantee the highest happiness to its members.



It's more on political beliefs entirely, like liberals hating/disliking those on the right. Which I think to be completely irrational.


----------



## Quantumcat (Jun 10, 2017)

TheDarkGreninja said:


> To represent what the majority of the people's beliefs are.


 Why is that even needed? So what if whatever percentage of a country's population is a certain religion? What does that have to do with government?


----------



## Lacius (Jun 10, 2017)

TheDarkGreninja said:


> Seeing as how most of our morals, whether you like it or not, come from religious beliefs of the past.


Morality doesn't come from religion.


----------



## bi388 (Jun 10, 2017)

TheDarkGreninja said:


> To represent what the majority of the people's beliefs are.


Doesnt that ostracize minorities? It would certainly make me feel ostracized. When something isnt directly political, why should the government endorse the majority opinion on it? The people of that religion will have the same rights whether its official or not, it makes no difference other than to say "these people are in our nations religion, and these minority groups arent." Religion should have absolutely no place in government imo, because once it enters, someone is going to enforce policies off of religious belief rather than reasoning. It even happens in secular nations.


----------



## TheDarkGreninja (Jun 10, 2017)

Lacius said:


> Morality doesn't come from religion.



I'm not saying it does. But many of the morals we have today are based on the morals of Christianity/Judaism/Islam etc.

Also, you should be clear on two different kinds of morality, objective and subjective.


----------



## Aurora Wright (Jun 10, 2017)

Lacius said:


> Morality doesn't come from religion.


Exactly, there's a logical explanation to all the "good" morality which some people think comes from religion. If anything, religion just reinforced it by giving it divine origin.


----------



## TheDarkGreninja (Jun 10, 2017)

Quantumcat said:


> Why is that even needed? So what if whatever percentage of a country's population is a certain religion? What does that have to do with government?



Nothing much. Just suggesting reasons.



bi388 said:


> someone is going to enforce policies off of religious belief rather than reasoning.



And if they're one and the same?

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



Aurora Wright said:


> Exactly, there's a logical explanation to all the "good" morality which some people think comes from religion. If anything, religion just reinforced it by giving it divine origin.


And what might that be? Anyway, we've digressed enough, I think.


----------



## bi388 (Jun 10, 2017)

TheDarkGreninja said:


> I'm not saying it does. But many of the morals we have today are based on the morals of Christianity/Judaism/Islam etc.
> 
> Also, you should be clear on two different kinds of morality, objective and subjective.


Whether or not there is objective morality is actually quite an interesting argument. I personally want to believe that there is, because it would help me to have more faith that humans as a species are good, but sometimes I have my doubts. My dad is a Philosophy teacher at my college and we have conversations about things like this a lot.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



TheDarkGreninja said:


> And if they're one and the same?


By religious belief I mean things that are supported only be religious texts/leaders, and not based off of observable evidence/what is best for people


----------



## StarTrekVoyager (Jun 10, 2017)

At the end, May has revealed herself as stupid as Cameron. First Cameron organizes a bloody vote without thinking to its consequences only to be reelected and steal UKIP's voters, then May is so self-confident trhat she organizes new election and screws herself up. And the opposition's not better, as Corbyn is a communist shitbag. At least, here Macron is guaranteed to take over the Parliament with up to 425/577 MPs.


----------



## TheDarkGreninja (Jun 10, 2017)

bi388 said:


> Whether or not there is objective morality is actually quite an interesting argument. I personally want to believe that there is, because it would help me to have more faith that humans as a species are good, but sometimes I have my doubts. My dad is a Philosophy teacher at my college and we have conversations about things like this a lot.


 
Indeed. I'd argue there is. As there is no rational reason to kill 9 million people. The only one I could ever think of was to kill 9 million innocent people to save 10 million innocent people for a net gain of 1 million innocent people.


----------



## Quantumcat (Jun 10, 2017)

bi388 said:


> Whether or not there is objective morality is actually quite an interesting argument. I personally want to believe that there is, because it would help me to have more faith that humans as a species are good, but sometimes I have my doubts. My dad is a Philosophy teacher at my college and we have conversations about things like this a lot.


You might like my textbook for this semester, it can be gotten as a PDF very easily. Search for Tavani Ethics PDF. Though it is mostly applied ethics, it still discusses the various theories (for applying to ethical dilemmas in IT).


----------



## TheDarkGreninja (Jun 10, 2017)

StarTrekVoyager said:


> Corbyn is a communist shitbag.



I wouldn't consider a socialist a communist.


----------



## Aurora Wright (Jun 10, 2017)

TheDarkGreninja said:


> And what might that be? Anyway, we've digressed enough, I think.


Take a society where killing is allowed and isn't considered wrong or unlawful. People would kill each other fairly often, people would live in fear of being killed, etc.
A moment would come when people, afraid of being killed, decided that killing each other mustn't be done and that it's "wrong", and put it into law to punish those who don't respect this rule.


----------



## TheDarkGreninja (Jun 10, 2017)

bi388 said:


> By religious belief I mean things that are supported only be religious texts/leaders, and not based off of observable evidence/what is best for people



I see.


----------



## StarTrekVoyager (Jun 10, 2017)

TheDarkGreninja said:


> I wouldn't consider a socialist a communist.


IMO if you are at the left of the left-wing party that's it. For me far-left = communist. I know Americans&co have a different df. of communism, but I'm not talking about USSR communism, far from that.


----------



## TheDarkGreninja (Jun 10, 2017)

StarTrekVoyager said:


> IMO if you are at the left of the left-wing party that's it. For me far-left = communist. I know Americans&co have a different df. of communism, but I'm not talking about USSR communism, far from that.



Socialism is far from the far left.


----------



## Quantumcat (Jun 10, 2017)

StarTrekVoyager said:


> IMO if you are at the left of the left-wing party that's it. For me far-left = communist. I know Americans&co have a different df. of communism, but I'm not talking about USSR communism, far from that.


If you use words to mean other than their actual definition then you'll get a lot of problems communicating what you mean.


----------



## the_randomizer (Jun 10, 2017)

The Tories are a bunch of damn stupid extremists, glad I didn't have to vote for them XD


----------



## TheDarkGreninja (Jun 10, 2017)

Aurora Wright said:


> Take a society where killing is allowed and isn't considered wrong or unlawful. People would kill each other fairly often, people would live in fear of being killed, etc.
> A moment would come when people, afraid of being killed, decided that killing each other mustn't be done and that it's "wrong", and put it into law to punish those who don't respect this rule.



So evolutionary biology then? Those who do not want to fight survive and those who do die, therefore meaning the morals of those who did not want to fight are passed on to the next generation.
What then would be the reason for making polyamy illegal?

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------

For the American tempers who might be confused about Corbyn, he's basically Britain's Bernie.


----------



## bi388 (Jun 10, 2017)

TheDarkGreninja said:


> So evolutionary biology then? Those who do not want to fight survive and those who do die, therefore meaning the morals of those who did not want to fight are passed on to the next generation.
> What then would be the reason for making polyamy illegal?


Some lawmaker was upset that studs stole all the girls /s


----------



## Bubsy Bobcat (Jun 10, 2017)

The parliament has a big fat dong because it's hung


----------



## the_randomizer (Jun 10, 2017)

TheDarkGreninja said:


> So evolutionary biology then? Those who do not want to fight survive and those who do die, therefore meaning the morals of those who did not want to fight are passed on to the next generation.
> What then would be the reason for making polyamy illegal?
> 
> --------------------- MERGED ---------------------------
> ...



Which is better than having a British Clinton IMO.


----------



## Aurora Wright (Jun 10, 2017)

TheDarkGreninja said:


> What then would be the reason for making polyamy illegal?


If by polygamy you mean relationships among more than 2 people, I'd say that monogamy used to be important in regulating western society in the past (with the man and the woman having different roles, the former was in control and went to work, and the latter was relegated to taking care of children and the house).
However, that's no longer needed. I'm myself in favor of rights to people in consensual polyamorous relationships


----------



## StarTrekVoyager (Jun 10, 2017)

Quantumcat said:


> If you use words to mean other than their actual definition then you'll get a lot of problems communicating what you mean.





TheDarkGreninja said:


> Socialism is far from the far left.


In France the main Left-wing party is the Socialist party, and at the left of that are the Communists.


----------



## TheDarkGreninja (Jun 10, 2017)

Aurora Wright said:


> If by polygamy you mean relationships among more than 2 people, I'd say that monogamy used to be important in regulating western society in the past (with the man and the woman having different roles, the former was in control and went to work, and the latter was relegated to taking care of children and the house).
> However, that's no longer needed. I'm myself in favor of rights to people in consensual polyamorous relationships



God Dammit, you ruined my argument.

Anyways, there are a lot of things that are considered illegal that, to me at least, lack rationality altogether. 
Also, I'd say it's incorrect to suggest that religion hasn't played a part at all in shaping morals.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



StarTrekVoyager said:


> In France the main Left-wing party is the Socialist party, and at the left of that are the Communists.



Yes but both views are still separate.


----------



## G0R3Z (Jun 10, 2017)

TheDarkGreninja said:


> God Dammit, you ruined my argument.
> 
> Anyways, there are a lot of things that are considered illegal that, to me at least, lack rationality altogether.
> Also, I'd say it's incorrect to suggest that religion hasn't played a part at all in shaping morals.



Religion certainly does have a part in how we view morals. Morals for the most part are a personal thing. What one person sees as moral may be slightly different for someone else. But we still hold the views of religions in high regard, even in a country like the UK. I think it's kind of ridiculous to still hold religion in high regard.


----------



## bi388 (Jun 10, 2017)

StarTrekVoyager said:


> In France the main Left-wing party is the Socialist party, and at the left of that are the Communists.


Exactly, communists are further left than socialists. Also socialism in France is very different from other nations. As someone who has lived in France, my experience is politicians there often run on far more extreme ideologies than what they actually support, then jump to the center when elected. The French socialist presidents have never been what other nations would consider socialist. Maybe democratic socialist like bernie.


----------



## TheDarkGreninja (Jun 10, 2017)

G0R3Z said:


> Religion certainly does have a part in how we view morals. Morals for the most part are a personal thing. What one person sees as moral may be slightly different for someone else. But we still hold the views of religions in high regard, even in a country like the UK. I think it's kind of ridiculous to still hold religion in high regard.



What exactly do you mean by "high regard"?


----------



## sarkwalvein (Jun 10, 2017)

bi388 said:


> Then whats the point of even having an official religion? It still rubs me as propaganda and brainwashing, but I guess im probably lacking first hand experience.





TheDarkGreninja said:


> To represent what the majority of the people's beliefs are.


I don't think it is a good practice to have an official religion, I think it marginalizes whoever that is not from the official religion group.

On this I would give as an example Argentina, today still has traces of it as in its constitution it declares "freedom of religion" but also "the state will economically support the Roman Catholic cult".

Anyway, up to 1994 it also forced that in order to be President you had to be a Roman Catholic.
In the 90s we had a President that was muslim, but he had to convert to Roman Catholic in order to be able to become President, and one of the first things he did was move on to modify the constitution and remove this requirement, today you can be President no matter your belief.

I believe a country is of its people, no matter their religion, and there shouldn't be constraints put upon them to be part of a certain cult in order to participate in the political future of said country, but well...

PS: And regarding that specific president, don't put words in my mouth, that was as shitty as most other presidents, if there was anything he was known for is as a joker (not sure if because he himself was a joke, or because of his jokes), but at least I am more than ok with that part of the constitution that was modified.


----------



## Lacius (Jun 10, 2017)

TheDarkGreninja said:


> I'm not saying it does. But many of the morals we have today are based on the morals of Christianity/Judaism/Islam etc.


That's like saying the letters of the alphabet we use today are based on the letters of the alphabet used in the Bible. Religion likes to claim that it has a monopoly on morality, but morality does not actually come from religion.

The Code of Hammurabi and its moral proclamations predate religious texts and their proclamations of morality.
If morality comes from religious proclamations, then it's impossible to assess whether or not those religious proclamations are moral. In other words, if I have one religious text that says murder is wrong, and I have another religious text that says murder is good, then I can't know which one is correct if morality comes from religious proclamations. We all use our capacity for reason to figure out what is conducive to well being, our evolved biological predispositions to what we would consider to be moral behavior, etc. to determine what's moral.
The fact that people selectively pick the moral proclamations they like and disregard the ones they don't like demonstrates that morality does not come from religious texts.
TL;DR: Just because a religious text makes a claim about morality doesn't mean that's where morality comes from.

Because this is all off-topic, I'm ending my participation in this topic here. PM me or tag me in an on-topic thread if you want me to continue to participate.


----------



## TheDarkGreninja (Jun 10, 2017)

Lacius said:


> That's like saying the letters of the alphabet we use today are based on the letters of the alphabet used in the Bible. Religion likes to claim that it has a monopoly on morality, but morality does not actually come from religion.
> 
> The Code of Hammurabi and its moral proclamations predate religious texts and their proclamations of morality.
> If morality comes from religious proclamations, then it's impossible to assess whether or not those religious proclamations are moral. In other words, if I have one religious text that says murder is wrong, and I have another religious text that says murder is good, then I can't know which one is correct if morality comes from religious proclamations. We all use our capacity for reason to figure out what is conducive to well being, our evolved biological predispositions to what we would consider to be moral behavior, etc. to determine what's moral.
> ...



Here's an explanation of what I think:


TheDarkGreninja said:


> So evolutionary biology then? Those who do not want to fight survive and those who do die, therefore meaning the morals of those who did not want to fight are passed on to the next generation.
> What then would be the reason for making polyamy illegal?


----------



## Gyron (Jun 10, 2017)

StarTrekVoyager said:


> IMO if you are at the left of the left-wing party that's it. For me far-left = communist. I know Americans&co have a different df. of communism, but I'm not talking about USSR communism, far from that.


You should go work for the Daily Mail. You wouldn't even need an interview if you showed them your post.


----------



## G0R3Z (Jun 10, 2017)

TheDarkGreninja said:


> What exactly do you mean by "high regard"?



Exactly what I said; High regard. People, even those who aren't particularly religious, still review religious texts like the bible as though they're not just several thousand year old pieces of fiction. Those books, among all others, are treated as special. Their morals aren't intelligent or wise. The first several commandments for example: "You shall not have any other gods but me" and "You shall not make for yourself any false idol and bow down to it, or worship it". Wow, I wonder what their god thinks of all of those Jesus statues that people worship, or that old guy in the vatican with all of his wealth.


----------



## bi388 (Jun 10, 2017)

G0R3Z said:


> Exactly what I said; High regard. People, even those who aren't particularly religious, still review religious texts like the bible as though they're not just several thousand year old pieces of fiction. Those books, among all others, are treated as special. Their morals aren't intelligent or wise. The first several commandments for example: "You shall not have any other gods but me" and "You shall not make for yourself any false idol and bow down to it, or worship it". Wow, I wonder what their god thinks of all of those Jesus statues that people worship, or that old guy in the vatican with all of his wealth.


In christianity Jesus literally is god, they are two entities of the same being. And im pretty sure the Pope aint rich.


----------



## G0R3Z (Jun 10, 2017)

bi388 said:


> In christianity Jesus literally is god, they are two entities of the same being. And im pretty sure the Pope aint rich.



Sure, you keep thinking that the Vatican isn't insanely wealthy.


----------



## bi388 (Jun 10, 2017)

G0R3Z said:


> Sure, you keep thinking that the Vatican isn't insanely wealthy.


I didnt say the Vatican, I said the pope. When you said "that old guy" I assumed you were referring to a person, not a nation.


----------



## sarkwalvein (Jun 10, 2017)

G0R3Z said:


> Sure, you keep thinking that the Vatican isn't insanely wealthy.


Well, the Vatican has always been insanely rich, that is for sure.
But the current Pope is, was, has always been, anything but wealthy.
He is a Franciscan for god's sake.


----------



## RevPokemon (Jun 10, 2017)

sarkwalvein said:


> He is a Franciscan for god's sake.



Society of Jesus


----------



## StarTrekVoyager (Jun 10, 2017)

Gyron said:


> You should go work for the Daily Mail. You wouldn't even need an interview if you showed them your post.


I didn't understand that.


----------



## sarkwalvein (Jun 10, 2017)

RevPokemon said:


> Society of Jesus


Yes, he also is a Jesuit, but the name he chose was in honor of Francis of Assisi, and well... if you have heard him even before he was Pope back in Argentina, you will notice what are the allegiances.


----------



## RevPokemon (Jun 10, 2017)

Anyway, I probably would have voted LibDem


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Jun 10, 2017)

Since when is the British election a religious discussion??


----------



## RevPokemon (Jun 10, 2017)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> Since when is the British election a religious discussion??


Because any topic that is political turns to Islam over time


----------



## Gyron (Jun 10, 2017)

StarTrekVoyager said:


> I didn't understand that.


I was just joking around with you (hence the wink smiley) about what you consider communism (I know the far left is interpreted differently in France, but we're talking about the British election), and calling Jeremy Corbyn a communist shitbag. The Daily Mail laps up that kind of rhetoric. They have a tendency to create sensationalist nonsensical headlines. Notice how they needlessly print 'COMMUNIST PARTY' completely in upper case.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4439480/Polls-underestimating-Tory-support.html


----------



## smile72 (Jun 12, 2017)

My opinion is that Theresa May should've just waited until 2020. And now its going to look awful for her. Why? Simply because her having to make a deal with the evil DUP makes her and the UK more vulnerable in the Brexit discussions. I just think it was all a mistake for her. Sure she will still be prime minister due to her stubbornness but that wont really makes Britain's negotiating position any better. Well, I assumed something like this would happen. It was obvious. I wish the EU the best in negotiations.


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Jun 12, 2017)

smile72 said:


> My opinion is that Theresa May should've just waited until 2020. And now its going to look awful for her. Why? Simply because her having to make a deal with the evil DUP makes her and the UK more vulnerable in the Brexit discussions. I just think it was all a mistake for her. Sure she will still be prime minister due to her stubbornness but that wont really makes Britain's negotiating position any better. Well, I assumed something like this would happen. It was obvious. I wish the EU the best in negotiations.


"DUP"?


----------



## RevPokemon (Jun 12, 2017)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> "DUP"?


Democratic Unionist Party which is a Northern Irish party


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Jun 12, 2017)

RevPokemon said:


> Democratic Unionist Party which is a Northern Irish party


Thanks, I read up on it a bit and they seem... not nice


----------



## RevPokemon (Jun 12, 2017)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> Thanks, I read up on it a bit and they seem... not nice


what seems weird?


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Jun 12, 2017)

RevPokemon said:


> what seems weird?


??


----------



## the_randomizer (Jun 12, 2017)

The DUP is evil, a lot of my friends from the UK really don't want them to have their way, and I don't blame them. Damn political extremists from the look of things.


----------



## retrofan_k (Jun 12, 2017)

Don't care and stopped voting 20 years ago.


----------



## smile72 (Jun 12, 2017)

the_randomizer said:


> The DUP is evil, a lot of my friends from the UK really don't want them to have their way, and I don't blame them. Damn political extremists from the look of things.


Exactly and because May was an idiot she is giving them power. I keep reading that May is promising that she will do her best to expand ssm into Northern Ireland but lets be frank. She has no power to do so. Without the DUP there can be no government. So she is at their mercy. But I'm so glad Sinn Fein gained 3 seats~!


----------



## the_randomizer (Jun 12, 2017)

smile72 said:


> Exactly and because May was an idiot she is giving them power. I keep reading that May is promising that she will do her best to expand ssm into Northern Ireland but lets be frank. She has no power to do so. Without the DUP there can be no government. So she is at their mercy. But I'm so glad Sinn Fein gained 3 seats~!



The main reason I can't stand May, is because she's pro fox hunting, which I absolutely despise as it is cruel and absolutely unnecessary in this day and age, and looks like she doesn't have a chance to repeal the 2004 fox hunting ban. So yeah, among her other half-assed "promises", she should be kicked out of office.


----------



## RevPokemon (Jun 13, 2017)

smile72 said:


> Exactly and because May was an idiot she is giving them power. I keep reading that May is promising that she will do her best to expand ssm into Northern Ireland but lets be frank. She has no power to do so. Without the DUP there can be no government. So she is at their mercy. But I'm so glad Sinn Fein gained 3 seats~!


Who knows really? If it is soley focused on economic issues than it will turn out good.



the_randomizer said:


> The main reason I can't stand May, is because she's pro fox hunting, which I absolutely despise as it is cruel and absolutely unnecessary in this day and age, and looks like she doesn't have a chance to repeal the 2004 fox hunting ban. So yeah, among her other half-assed "promises", she should be kicked out of office.


Heh, all the PM people are shitty but overall May seeks probably worst of all


----------



## the_randomizer (Jun 13, 2017)

RevPokemon said:


> Who knows really? If it is soley focused on economic issues than it will turn out good.
> 
> 
> Heh, all the PM people are shitty but overall May seeks probably worst of all



I don't know anyone dumb enough to vote for someone like her, there's no logic, everyone I know from friends in the UK all hate her guts lol.


----------



## RevPokemon (Jun 13, 2017)

the_randomizer said:


> I don't know anyone dumb enough to vote for someone like her, there's no logic, everyone I know from friends in the UK all hate her guts lol.


Well realistically there are a lot of issues going on with labour that hurt it (Blairites vs Corbyn) so I can see it. I mean overall the Torries are better than labour although I do love me some Corbyn ( I know I am the opposite). But I would vote LibDem as they are the most libertarian overall and I only like Corbyn due to his FP and May for her economics... Regardless I hate most major parties regardless of who they are


----------



## emigre (Jun 14, 2017)

I've only read the last two pages and don't get the references to religion.

Anyhows credit to Theresa May, she did something quite special and rather than shoot herself in the foot, she shot herself in the head. In a moment of madness, I ended up rejoining the Labour party.

EDIT: What the fuck is with the mentions of muslims? No one gave a shit about that. If anything it was about May fucking up and people getting sick of austerity. Corbs tapped into the feelings of helplessness many felt coupled with a message of hope against fear and led Labour to a credible performance which can act as a base for future victory. It was amazing at how little immigration was commented on in this election especially after the last few years.


----------

