There's No England Now...

[tabibito]

Everything about the liberal agenda when it comes to sexuality is about CONSENT. A child is not capable of giving this, under any definition.

That would depend on what age is classified as a child. And what happens - as it frequently does - when 14 year olds pass themselves off as being 18 ... easy enough to do, and the older partners then wind up with a nasty reputation for things that they were duped about. I would argue that 14 year olds are as capable of consent now as they were 100 years agone. Protecting them from coercion and inducement is of course another matter.

In fact, the push is to include drug/alcohol influence under the "can't consent" umbrella. They're making the range of "can't consent" BROADER.

Interesting. If both parties be under the influence, who is the offender? "The drunk's defence" (too drunk to know what "I" was doing) increasingly is being removed as admissible under court conditions.

[Starlight]

A scientific study that measures "happiness"? Seriously? And what is the objective, scientific definition of "happiness"? And how do you scientifically and objectively measure it? Take their word for it?

There is an entire academic field called Positive Psychology that spends its time doing exactly that. It is something I am quite interested in, and I have read quite a few books on it. One of my best friends has a PhD in it.

It turns out that, yes, asking people how happy they are and taking their word for it, is actually one of the best and easiest ways of doing it. The cantril scale which has been widely used for the last 60 years gets people to rank their overall satisfaction with their lives from 0 to 10, where 0 is the worst possible life and 10 is the best possible life. The UN has begun doing world-wide studies of happiness every year or so, and they use the cantril scale for that. There are a lot of other ways to try and measure happiness, but they tend to correlate well with the cantril scale.

And, of course, you still have to deal with the numerous studies showing an increase in physical and psychological health problems and a lower life expectancy.

The world's major psychological and health organisations have all submitted lengthy testimony to courts and governments that it is their view that the prejudice and stigma suffered by gay people in our societies leads them to disproportionate amounts of alcohol, tobacco and drug use as coping mechanisms, and likewise tends to lead to disproportionate amounts of chronic stress, anxiety, depression and suicide, suffered by them. This is a common pattern with any oppressed group, and is known as minority stress. So professional medical groups have emphasized the importance of giving gay people full human rights and working to reduce the stigma and prejudice against them in society in order to achieve better health outcomes for them. Studies of the effects of legalizing same-sex marriage have observed immediate improvements in the health and well-being of gay people as could be expected from this. As prejudice and stigma against gay people continues to reduce in the Western world, it seems likely that the negative health effects suffered by gay people as a product of those social prejudices will continue to be reduced. However there is still a reasonable way to go, as the majority of gay couples in even the most tolerant and liberal of Western countries still say that they don't hold hands in public for fear of negative social repercussions.

[Abigail]

Here is one church which must be recomissioned.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/men/think...ound-accident/

[Abigail]

If those schools educate kids, it will be The End Of Britain As We Know It.

We never stop hearing about LGBT and all their issues and I for one am frankly quite sick of it. This is just another effort to give them unfair advantages. And by the way liberal policies in UK have brought chaos in classrooms and a fall in standards of education.

[EvoUK]

And by the way liberal policies in UK have brought chaos in classrooms and a fall in standards of education.

Care to name them? The fall in standards of education is largely due to underfunding - which is the fault of several consecutive governments, most notably the Tories (who are in no way a liberal party). Underfunding public services is sort of their MO.

[EvoUK]

Nah, England's Muslim population will take care of the homosexuals real quick once they gain some real power.

Still a while off yet, but I sort of agree in the underlying point. I was having a conversation with some friends recently about the seeming rise of lone terrorists across the continent and what to do about them, for example.

I'd argue that the question becomes – what do you do about it. You could implement a ban on Muslims entering Europe, but those that are determined to enter and attack will do so anyway. Then you have to escalate – deportations, internment, military action – but you’ll never eliminate the threat. They’ll still be able to attack at the same rate as they do now, i.e. one lone mentalist every month or so.

So, by going that route, you’ve gained nothing in security terms, but you have transformed the West into a totalitarian, paranoid, militarised place – a tangibly worse, less free place to live than before you started. And still the terrorist threat is there. Possibly it’ll be greater, given that the ISIS narrative that the West is at war with Islam will have become demonstrable reality. In a sense, these attacks are the new normal, in the sense that there will never be a way to stop them entirely. Nothing ostrich-like about acknowledging that, but neither do they add up to an existential threat to the West, as the risk posed by terrorists to any one individual Westerner is so tiny that it may as well be zero.

To me, the main battle should be waged in the cultural sphere. Islamism should be challenged, ridiculed and undermined with a much greater muscularity than we’ve displayed so far. Otherwise, I agree that there has been unnecessary and damaging cultural concessions made to Islamism, particularly the failure to disseminate those cartoons after 2006 and 2015. It’s totally unacceptable to allow terrorists to impose a blasphemy law.

[Starlight]

So, by going that route, you’ve gained nothing in security terms, but you have transformed the West into a totalitarian, paranoid, militarised place – a tangibly worse, less free place to live than before you started...
...the risk posed by terrorists to any one individual Westerner is so tiny that it may as well be zero.

To me, the main battle should be waged in the cultural sphere. Islamism should be challenged, ridiculed and undermined with a much greater muscularity than we’ve displayed so far.

I 1000% agree on all points.

[Starlight]

We never stop hearing about LGBT and all their issues and I for one am frankly quite sick of it.

Seems to me you could substitute almost any group in there instead of LGBT: Jews, blacks, Muslims, poor people, Christians, etc. I imagine many rich people are sick of hearing about poor people, and wish they could just shut up already.

I'm sorry that your empathy is so sorely limited, and I would encourage you to ask God to help you become a more loving and caring person.

This is just another effort to give them unfair advantages.

LGBT people have 'unfair advantages'? You must live in a world where up is down. And you think pre-school kids being taught that gay people exist is giving "unfair advantages" to LGBT people...? Is having pre-schoolers know of your existence an unfair advantage?

And by the way liberal policies in UK have brought chaos in classrooms and a fall in standards of education.

Selfish and sociopathic conservative policies have underfunded the education system and instead have funneled the money into the pockets of rich people. Not sure what that's got to do with socially progressive ideas.

[Mountain Man]

There is an entire academic field called Positive Psychology that spends its time doing exactly that. It is something I am quite interested in, and I have read quite a few books on it. One of my best friends has a PhD in it.

It turns out that, yes, asking people how happy they are and taking their word for it, is actually one of the best and easiest ways of doing it. The cantril scale which has been widely used for the last 60 years gets people to rank their overall satisfaction with their lives from 0 to 10, where 0 is the worst possible life and 10 is the best possible life. The UN has begun doing world-wide studies of happiness every year or so, and they use the cantril scale for that. There are a lot of other ways to try and measure happiness, but they tend to correlate well with the cantril scale.

So it's a completely subjective evaluation that is open to interpretation by the researcher. It sounds like the "cantril scale" can be used to arrive at any conclusion you want.

Here's the part of my post you studiously avoided:

How [do claims of happy homosexuals] gel with scientific studies showing that homosexual couples are significantly more likely to be victims of domestic violence?

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/c...919-story.html

http://www.advocate.com/crime/2014/0...nce-lgbt-issue

https://winteryknight.com/2013/11/18...exual-couples/

The world's major psychological and health organisations have all submitted lengthy testimony to courts and governments that it is their view that the prejudice and stigma suffered by gay people in our societies leads them to disproportionate amounts of alcohol, tobacco and drug use as coping mechanisms, and likewise tends to lead to disproportionate amounts of chronic stress, anxiety, depression and suicide, suffered by them. This is a common pattern with any oppressed group, and is known as minority stress. So professional medical groups have emphasized the importance of giving gay people full human rights and working to reduce the stigma and prejudice against them in society in order to achieve better health outcomes for them. Studies of the effects of legalizing same-sex marriage have observed immediate improvements in the health and well-being of gay people as could be expected from this. As prejudice and stigma against gay people continues to reduce in the Western world, it seems likely that the negative health effects suffered by gay people as a product of those social prejudices will continue to be reduced. However there is still a reasonable way to go, as the majority of gay couples in even the most tolerant and liberal of Western countries still say that they don't hold hands in public for fear of negative social repercussions.

Like I said, homosexuals have deluded themselves into thinking that they would finally be happy if only everybody else would change. That's known as denial.

And since when did court testimony trump scientific studies? An "expert witness" with an unfair bias and agenda is now considered more credible than a dispassionate evaluation of the data? A courtroom and not the science lab is now the appropriate place for settling scientific inquiries? I don't think so.

Here's another post of mine that you apparently ignored:

Here's a look at a 2015 CDC study:

Source: CNS News

“During 2000-2014, the rise in the P&S [or primary and secondary] syphilis rate was primarily attributable to increased cases among men and, specifically, among gay, bisexual, and other men who have sex with men (collectively referred to as MSM),” reported the CDC.

In 2014, reported the health agency, “men accounted for 91% of all cases of P&S syphilis. And, of those male cases for whom sex of sex partner was known, 83% were MSM.”

83% of 91% equals 75.53%, which means that 75.53% of syphilis cases in 2014 were among homosexual men.

Further, “reported cases of P&S syphilis continued to be characterized by a high rate of HIV co-infection, particularly among MSM,” said the CDC. In fact, 51% of the homosexual men diagnosed with syphilis in 2014 were also HIV-positive.

“Gay, bisexual, and other men who have sex with men (MSM) are at increased risk for STDs … when compared to women and exclusively heterosexual men,” reported the CDC. “[I]ndividual-level risk behaviors, such as number of lifetime sex partners, rate of partner exchange and frequency of unprotected sex, may contribute to rates of STDs.”

On its website, the CDC reported, “Syphilis continues to increase among gay, bisexual, and other men who have sex with men. Recent outbreaks among MSM have been marked by high rates of HIV coinfection and high-risk sexual behaviors (such as sex without a condom, new or multiple partners, and substance abuse). Cases of ocular syphilishave also been reported among MSM. Ocular syphilis occurs when syphilis affects the eye and can lead to permanent blindness. While the health problems caused by syphilis in adults are serious, it is also known that the genital sores caused by syphilis in adults also make it easier to get and give HIV infection sexually.”

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/...ex-partner-was

© Copyright Original Source

Here's a more recent one citing a 2016 study of teenagers done by the CDC:

Source: American Thinker

In almost every instance, the risky behavior measured – especially behaviors that are often linked to a moral decision – was much more prevalent among teenagers engaging in homosexual activity. In addition, and unsurprisingly, those students with the healthiest outcomes were those who refrained from sexual activity. In most of the risky behaviors measured, the outcomes are not even close.

For example, students engaging in homosexual activity were about three times more likely to feel "sad or hopeless" than students who had no sexual contact. In addition, students engaging in homosexual activity were nearly four times more likely to have seriously considered attempting suicide than students who had no sexual contact, and they were six and a half times more likely to have actually attempted suicide.

Comparing the same two groups (students engaging in homosexual activity vs. students with no sexual contact), students engaging in homosexual activity were:

• Eight times more likely to smoke
• 47 times more likely to smoke frequently (20 or more cigarettes in the month prior to the survey)
• Nearly three times as likely to have tried alcohol prior to age 13
• Three and a half times as likely to be currently using alcohol
• More than 11 times as likely to binge drink (10 or more drinks in a row)
• Nearly six times as likely to be currently using marijuana
• More than 16 times as likely ever to have used hallucinogenic drugs
• More than 18 times as likely ever to have used cocaine
• 30 times as likely ever to have used heroin
• 23 times as likely ever to have used methamphetamines

http://www.americanthinker.com/artic...ual_teens.html

© Copyright Original Source

A 2016 Reuters article about a health survey conducted by Vanderbilt University School of Medicine in Nashville:

Source: Reuters

Gilbert Gonzales of the Vanderbilt University School of Medicine in Nashville and colleagues found that compared to heterosexual women, lesbians were 91 percent more likely to report poor or fair health. Lesbians were 51 percent more likely, and bisexual women were more than twice as likely, to report multiple chronic conditions, compared to straight women.

Gay, lesbian and bisexual people were also more likely than heterosexuals to report heavy drinking and smoking.

While gays and lesbians reported worse psychological distress than heterosexuals, bisexual people suffered the most, the survey showed.

For example, about 17 percent of heterosexual men had at least moderate psychological distress, compared to about 26 percent of gay men and about 40 percent of bisexual men.

Similarly, about 22 percent of heterosexual women had at least moderate psychological distress, compared to about 28 percent of lesbian women and about 46 percent of bisexual women.

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-he...-idUSKCN0ZE2XE

© Copyright Original Source

WebMD states very simply in a 2016 article that "gay and bisexual men are at greatest risk for STDs".

The following website catalogs a number of studies over the years -- as far back as the 1990's to more recent works -- and shows how they all have consistently reached the same conclusions about homosexuality:

http://www.trevorgrantthomas.com/p/d...sexuality.html

[Abigail]

Care to name them? The fall in standards of education is largely due to underfunding - which is the fault of several consecutive governments, most notably the Tories (who are in no way a liberal party). Underfunding public services is sort of their MO.

David Cameron and his tight little coterie of friends who ran the country under 'Conservatives' were more liberal than conservative.

I would argue that overall, classroom discipline is a bigger factor in education standards than excess funding to indulge little darlings in trips to weirdo art galleries etc and other stupid endeavours. Labour borrowing for spending sprees was taking the country to the brink and was unsustainable and our grandchildren will still be paying it back.
How much public money did Camila Batmanghelidjh waste? People like her and Bahar Mustafa are pretty representative of the liberals I have met in the education system. Squandering public money and and sidelining anyone who doesn't parrot their garbage.

[EvoUK]

I would argue that overall, classroom discipline is a bigger factor in education standards than excess funding to indulge little darlings in trips to weirdo art galleries etc and other stupid endeavours.

Schools are currently having to ask parents for donations for school equipment whilst they also look into which teacher they'll have to lay off this year & which subjects to get rid of, due to the chronic underfunding. If you think the money is going on 'trips to weirdo art galleries etc' then you desperately need to look into it more and educate yourself. Once schools have the basic level of funding from government to function properly, then we can discuss the rest of your issues, which again do not relate to anything i have seen in the UK.

I note that you live in Surrey - same as me currently - and I'm interested which part you live in that you'd come up with the above quote and think it was representational?




Frankly, with the up-coming GE there's no much wrong with our country under Tory rule that it's hard to know where to start. Unfortunately, it's blatant nonsense to pretend that this election will be about the NHS, or benefit cuts, or anything other than Brexit. And, since the Labour party stupidly decided to bow to the so-called ‘will’ of fearful and uneducated idiots, and to vote through Article 50, they have absolutely nothing to say on the matter. Off-topic rant over, apologies.

[Abigail]

Seems to me you could substitute almost any group in there instead of LGBT: Jews, blacks, Muslims, poor people, Christians, etc. I imagine many rich people are sick of hearing about poor people, and wish they could just shut up already.

I'm sorry that your empathy is so sorely limited, and I would encourage you to ask God to help you become a more loving and caring person.

LGBT people have 'unfair advantages'? You must live in a world where up is down. And you think pre-school kids being taught that gay people exist is giving "unfair advantages" to LGBT people...? Is having pre-schoolers know of your existence an unfair advantage?

Selfish and sociopathic conservative policies have underfunded the education system and instead have funneled the money into the pockets of rich people. Not sure what that's got to do with socially progressive ideas.

Nope liberals just about run education in the UK. I know how they work. Fast tracking the rise of those who fit or parrot their agendas and sidelining and gagging those who dont agree.

[Darth Executor]

You could implement a ban on Muslims entering Europe, but those that are determined to enter and attack will do so anyway. Then you have to escalate – deportations, internment, military action – but you’ll never eliminate the threat. They’ll still be able to attack at the same rate as they do now, i.e. one lone mentalist every month or so.

Most of the attackers didn't go to Europe to specifically attack. They only decided on that after actually meeting you. So a ban on further immigration would go a long way.

So, by going that route, you’ve gained nothing in security terms, but you have transformed the West into a totalitarian, paranoid, militarised place – a tangibly worse, less free place to live than before you started. And still the terrorist threat is there. Possibly it’ll be greater, given that the ISIS narrative that the West is at war with Islam will have become demonstrable reality. In a sense, these attacks are the new normal, in the sense that there will never be a way to stop them entirely. Nothing ostrich-like about acknowledging that, but neither do they add up to an existential threat to the West, as the risk posed by terrorists to any one individual Westerner is so tiny that it may as well be zero.

Who cares what ISIS thinks. But yes, importing savages and then turning your continent into an authoritarian craphole (arguably, it already is that) is a horrible idea.

To me, the main battle should be waged in the cultural sphere. Islamism should be challenged, ridiculed and undermined with a much greater muscularity than we’ve displayed so far. Otherwise, I agree that there has been unnecessary and damaging cultural concessions made to Islamism, particularly the failure to disseminate those cartoons after 2006 and 2015. It’s totally unacceptable to allow terrorists to impose a blasphemy law.

Brilliant plan:
1. Import millions of savages
2. Abuse and humiliate their most cherished possession at every turn.
....
3. Profit

Nevermind that most of the left will simply never go along with this plan.

[Abigail]

Schools are currently having to ask parents for donations for school equipment whilst they also look into which teacher they'll have to lay off this year & which subjects to get rid of, due to the chronic underfunding. If you think the money is going on 'trips to weirdo art galleries etc' then you desperately need to look into it more and educate yourself. Once schools have the basic level of funding from government to function properly, then we can discuss the rest of your issues, which again do not relate to anything i have seen in the UK.

Schools asking parents for donations is not new and was happening under Labour. From the time my eldest got to highschool we got letters home asking for us to make regular contributions (state comprehensive). My children have all left school now so it is not something new. Discipline in the school was terrible.

I note that you live in Surrey - same as me currently - and I'm interested which part you live in that you'd come up with the above quote and think it was representational?

It is representative in that it reflects the general mantra that if funding levels are not at the same level as private schools then the education will be bad and that is not true. When I was in highschool we had big class sizes (30+) in most classes and yet some of the kids in my school gave the kids from private schools a run for their money. Our schools had much tighter discipline in the classrooms than we get in state schools today.

[seer]

You don't appear to understand, at all, that liberal morality has its own system of guiding principles. Liberals have acted according to the guiding principles as they see them. One of the core liberal guiding principles is free-will aka consent: Things done with consent are 'okay', things done without consent are 'bad'.

So let me get this right. You can kill an infant without consent but you can't have sex with him/her?