Fortsätt till huvudinnehåll

Why I was banned by the Guardian

This is what the Guardian told me. The parody was too subtle to be recognised for what it was...

You had your posting rights removed after you wrote posts such as this:

"But everyone knows that the Catholic Church is a continuation of the Nazi Party and the Pope is the sucessor to Adolf Hitler. And all priests are paedophiles.
So it was a good move of Amnesty to come into the open and shake off this evil reactionary organisation.
Why the surprise that it has responded precisely as it did when Amnesty took the principled stand it did.
Abortion is a basic human right. Everyone has a right to be aborted."

and

"We seem to be getting defensive articles about Islam two or three times a week. Judging by the comments, their main effect is to stir up hostility. In which case silence might be more productive. As an aside, what precisely is Islam for? When Islam came into existence, thre were already two perfectly good religions for people who want to believe in God - Judaism and Christianity. If consequences are anything to go by, Islam adds absolutely nothing positive and much that is negative.
Since nobody is forced to remain in the religion they inherited from their parents, why are Muslims so resistant to considering the alternatives? Do they have lazy minds or what?"

I am not sure whether you were trying to be funny, or merely trying to provoke other users, but your posts were offensive in the extreme. You also display prejudice towards Muslims, which we had several complaints about. In order to post on CIF, you first agree to abide by our talk policy. You have breached this, and are therefore no longer allowed to post.
Etiketter:

Kommentarer

Skicka en kommentar

Populära inlägg i den här bloggen

Importing people to sustain demand

I got involved in a discussion with a Youtuber called “Philosophy all along”. This was in connection with criticism of Trump’s policy of deporting illegal migrants, which he argued would be bad for the economy as it would reduce demand. This implies that there is a need to import people to sustain demand. There is no obvious reason why a population should not be able to consume everything that the same population produces. If it can not, then something else is going on. It is a basic principle that wages are the least that workers will accept to do a job. Wages are a share of the value added by workers through their wages. The remainder is distributed as economic rent, after government has taken its cut in taxes. Monopoly profit is a temporary surplus that after a delay gets absorbed into economic rent. Land values in Silicon Valley are an example of this; it's like a gold rush. The miners get little out of it. Rent and tax syphon purchasing power away from those who produce the g...
Skicka en kommentar
Läs mer

The dreadfulness of British governance

I wrote to my MP on two entirely separate issues recently. The first was to do with the replacement for the Inter City 125 train, which at £2.6 million per vehicle, is twice as expensive as it ought to be. The second concerned the benefits of a switch from business rate and Council Tax to a tax based on site values. In both cases, the replies were full of spurious, unsubstantiated assertions and completely flawed arguments. This is typical. You will not get an iota of sense from the government on any area of public policy at all - finance, economics, trade and employment, agriculture, housing, health, transport, energy. All junk. If you write to your MP you will invariably receive answers that are an insult to your intelligence, no matter what subject you are writing about. Of course they cannot understand statistics. They are innumerate. Whitehall is staffed with idiots with a high IQ. Look at their IT projects. And mind your purse, they will have that too.
Skicka en kommentar
Läs mer

How much more will the British tolerate?

The British are phlegmatic, tolerant and slow to rouse. Thus there was no great reaction after the terrorist attack in July 2005. The murder of Lee Rigby created a sense of outrage, but nothing more, since it appeared to be an isolated incident. Two serious incidents within a fortnight are another matter. Since the first major terrorist incident in 2001, authority has tried to persuade the public that Islam is a religion of peace, that these were isolated events, or the actions of deranged "lone wolves", having nothing to do with Islam, or to reassure that the chances of being killed in a terrorist attack were infinitesimally small. These assurances are are beginning to wear thin. They no longer convince. If government does not act effectively, people will take the law into their own hands. What, however, would effective action look like? What sort of effective action would not amount to rough justice for a lot of innocent people? Given the difficulties of keeping large n...
Skicka en kommentar
Läs mer