Max Headroom Posted February 9, 2009 Share Posted February 9, 2009 Hello Max, Christians perspective as outlined by the gospels. That old testament stuff is for the birds, lot of old tripe and fabrication. Most modern christians, and indeed the society we live in today, is based on some sound Christian principles. Carl So the old part of the bible is tripe and shouldn't be taken any notice of? And I was under the impression the whole bible was a fabrication! As for christian values, other religions have them too, its not the preserve of christians alone!! Anyway back on topic, it was good to see the pillock owned Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Carl_S Posted February 9, 2009 Share Posted February 9, 2009 Good points max, and I agree, but the new testament is very different from the old, and a lot of common sense can be found there, along with some beautiful writing and ideas. Jewish religion is based on the old testament, and christianity is based on the new testament, I feel. as for the guy, chav , what ever that means is human too, and deserve respect. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tannhauser Posted February 9, 2009 Share Posted February 9, 2009 So the old part of the bible is tripe and shouldn't be taken any notice of? And I was under the impression the whole bible was a fabrication! Well, your original statement was something along the lines of "Christians also believe in an eye for an eye [from Exodus]" I believe Carl is right - for a Christian, the New Testament supercedes the Old Testament, at least in terms of a moral framework. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tannhauser Posted February 9, 2009 Share Posted February 9, 2009 as for the guy, chav , what ever that means is human too, and deserve respect. The aggressor was treated with an unbelievable amount of respect given the provocation he was doling out. The houseowner turned the other cheek for a sustained period of abuse. When he put the chavvy guy down, he did so really pretty gently. I think he was probably trying to avoid repurcussions from the others rather than following an advanced ethical code, but based on his actions alone, he did the bare minimum necessary to defend himself and his property. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kranz Posted February 9, 2009 Share Posted February 9, 2009 Only on here can a post about a chav getting his just deserts turn into a debate about which is best.... New Vs Old testament Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tannhauser Posted February 9, 2009 Share Posted February 9, 2009 which is best.... New Vs Old testament There's only one way to find out.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Max Headroom Posted February 9, 2009 Share Posted February 9, 2009 Only on here can a post about a chav getting his just deserts turn into a debate about which is best.... New Vs Old testament Sorry but I did try to get it back on topic Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Max Headroom Posted February 9, 2009 Share Posted February 9, 2009 Well, your original statement was something along the lines of "Christians also believe in an eye for an eye [from Exodus]" I believe Carl is right - for a Christian, the New Testament supercedes the Old Testament, at least in terms of a moral framework. I follow my own path, but I do read a lot. my point was a the comment regarding a society based on sound christian principles and that sound moral principles were only attributable to christians. I appreciate we live in a christian society but do not muslims for example have a similar moral code! And before we go off on a tangent, even christians have there own little bands of fundamentalists I was only making a personal view but I respect what others have to say Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
benkei Posted February 9, 2009 Share Posted February 9, 2009 there's only one way to find out.... Fiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
j80leo Posted February 9, 2009 Share Posted February 9, 2009 What a pisser acting all Big I am and pow:p crawl home to mummy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Carl_S Posted February 9, 2009 Share Posted February 9, 2009 Hello Tannhauser. Thanks for your comments. We seem to be singing from the same hymn sheet, but then I noticed something and want to discuss it with you in an intelligent way. You talk about the guy being put down in gentle way. I cannot accept a punch, however light, that was intended to deter or inflict a degree of pain, can be described as gentle, or even respectful. For me that is like Israel sending a few "smaller than normal" rockets over to Gaza as a respectful way of treating the "chavvy" Palestinians. Also that word chavvy. What do you mean by it? Is not your very use of it designed to be a way of somehow diminishing the natural human rights of that person, by making a judgement about his class, motivations, and morality? Granted I have not viewed the video in question, but I feel I am raising a wider point. But even then my points could be related back to the video. Consider the following: 1) This whole affair was videoed and posted on youtube. It is then possible that the Defender (the man who threw the punch) was aware that the Visitor (the man that got hit) would come, and that he got his mate to video the whole thing to make him look like a good man. The defender could have been sleeping with the vistor's girlfriend, and the visitor could have been visiting to tell him off and vent his feelings. 2) The visitor could have been a member of Parliament gone to his london residence, only to find that, again, someone had been squatting there, and would not let him in. 3) All of them were martial artists (even the cameraman), and they just wanted to make a movie advertising why it is a good idea to learn a martial art for self defence. Yours, Carl Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tannhauser Posted February 9, 2009 Share Posted February 9, 2009 Hi Carl, To deal with the wider issues you raise: 1) I'm using 'gentle' as a relative term. Your analysis is severely hampered by the fact that you haven't watched the video. I feel the response was gentle relative to the sustained abuse the 'defender' was suffering. The 'visitor' wasn't obviously in pain and was able to retreat under his own steam. 2) I think an aggressive response can be gentle, inasmuch as it may be only what is needed to deter further aggression. A mother can give a child a little tap to correct its behaviour and the defender gave the visitor a little tap to stop his outrageous behaviour. 3) The Israel/Palestinian analogy is an interesting one, especially comparing the British underclass to the low status Palestinians. But seriously Dude, watch the vid. The status of the homeowner versus the visitor isn't the main issue. The visitor could be dressed in a top hat and tails - it's his aggression and provocation that defines him. 4) I actually referred to him as 'chavvy' simply to identify him. However, you're right, I am making assumptions about all of the things that you suggest, but I think they are a fair guess based on the context. 5) Is that a way of denying him his rights as a human being? No. I am all for supporting human rights, but that does not mean that you always have to appease aggression and it doesn't mean that you can't defend yourself, vigorously if necessary. There's a fundamental contradiction in human rights, because people live together in a society and inevitably have different needs, which brings them into conflict. Therefore, one person having his rights will necessarily mean someone else having his compromised. All we can do is to try to judge between them in a humane way. In my view, in this case, the defender has a right to a life free from intimidation and aggression that exceeds the rights of the visitor to be free from pain. I understand the idea that we are making assumptions based on appearances and our pre-conceived ideas about class, underclass and aggression. And you're right, we should be cautious about these generalisations. But none of your alternatives are plausible in this case. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Carl_S Posted February 9, 2009 Share Posted February 9, 2009 Thanks for your attention Tannhauser, it is fun to look at things in this close way, as I am sure you appreciate. I was particularly pleased and pleasantly surprised to hear you mention about needs of diverse communities living together and disputes arising where a decision would affect one groups "rights" more than another. Nice thinking and very relevant. On your last point, number 5, you mention about denying human rights, whereas in my post I talked about diminishing them. Perhaps it is more accurate for me to say to be seen to diminish said person's human rights by using the term "chavvy", which you feel is a justified description in the context. I will not comment further, as you quite rightly point out, I have not even seen the video. Carl Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bondango Posted February 9, 2009 Share Posted February 9, 2009 Well this wee scumbag was trying to Hijack a car on the falls road when "the boys" dispatched some swift action. a few weeks later the same little scumbag stabbed a pensioner to death http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4ugpZLSK8NI Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dandan Posted February 10, 2009 Share Posted February 10, 2009 It's amazing what gets caught on camera. This one is perhaps a little more extreme....no hesitation in a two against one situation......... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AndrewOW Posted February 10, 2009 Share Posted February 10, 2009 It's amazing what gets caught on camera. This one is perhaps a little more extreme....no hesitation in a two against one situation......... Do you know, I'm sure I've seen that video somewhere before. Ah, I remember. Here, only a few days ago. http://www.mkivsupra.net/vbb/showthread.php?t=176049 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tbourner Posted February 10, 2009 Share Posted February 10, 2009 2) The visitor could have been a member of Parliament gone to his london residence, only to find that, again, someone had been squatting there, and would not let him in. From the look of the road at the end of the video, I doubt it. 3) All of them were martial artists (even the cameraman), and they just wanted to make a movie advertising why it is a good idea to learn a martial art for self defence. Possible. 1) This whole affair was videoed and posted on youtube. It is then possible that the Defender (the man who threw the punch) was aware that the Visitor (the man that got hit) would come, and that he got his mate to video the whole thing to make him look like a good man. It looked as if it was a random person from the crown that had gathered, just videoing it on their phone. The defender could have been sleeping with the vistor's girlfriend, and the visitor could have been visiting to tell him off and vent his feelings. This is what I want to look into, like I said what was he actually ranting about (no sound)? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dandan Posted February 10, 2009 Share Posted February 10, 2009 Do you know, I'm sure I've seen that video somewhere before. Ah, I remember. Here, only a few days ago. http://www.mkivsupra.net/vbb/showthread.php?t=176049 Aha - I see. I don't browse through the off topic stuff that often....this title caught my eye on the forum main page. Apologies. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.