You are not a f*cking DJ. You’re an overpaid, untalented, cake-throwing c*nt.

jtsuited

yup Keane is fair enough. And brady I guess. But two?
The Nordies have Best, and considering the amount of people who play soccer in this country, it's not much of an anomaly to have a handful of historically brilliant players.

BaZmO*

jtsuited wrote: »

I'll give you golf.
Horse racing is only because of our stud history which was entirely founded by the British protestant landowners.
Soccer players? Hmmmmm.......we talking expats here?edit: sorry not expats but English descendants of Irish people.

Ah would ya feck off. That's like saying that Norwegians are only good at the Winter Olympics because they get snow.

ianuss

jtsuited wrote: »

yup Keane is fair enough. And brady I guess. But two?
The Nordies have Best, and considering the amount of people who play soccer in this country, it's not much of an anomaly to have a handful of historically brilliant players.

They were two off the top of my head. But there are more. Paul McGrath could have played for any side in Europe at his peak. Johnny Giles is a Leeds legend. And I'm sure if I was ar5ed and went through google I could find plenty more.

jtsuited

BaZmO* wrote: »

Ah would ya feck off. That's like saying that Norwegians are only good at the Winter Olympics because they get snow.

Feck off Baz, the whole industry and structure of the whole thing is British made. The reason 'we' do well in horse racing is because there are just loads and loads of racehorses bred in loads and loads of studs in Ireland (that largely weren't owned or founded by Irish people).

BaZmO*

jtsuited wrote: »

Feck off Baz, the whole industry and structure of the whole thing is British made.

So basically we can't et any credit for anything we do unless we start from scratch? Feck off x2!!

The British ruled the world at one stage so why aren't the rest of the ex Empire doing as well in the named disciplines?

jtsuited wrote: »

The reason 'we' do well in horse racing is because there are just loads and loads of racehorses bred in loads and loads of studs in Ireland (that largely weren't owned or founded by Irish people).

No, the reason we do so well in Horse Racing is down to the tax incentives given to horse breeders.

Android 666

jtsuited wrote: »

Feck off Baz, the whole industry and structure of the whole thing is British made. The reason 'we' do well in horse racing is because there are just loads and loads of racehorses bred in loads and loads of studs in Ireland (that largely weren't owned or founded by Irish people).

And the reason its doing so well now is because anyone that owns a stud here is living tax free! The fookers are minting it and not paying a penny!!!

jtsuited

BaZmO* wrote: »

So basically we can't et any credit for anything we do unless we start from scratch? Feck off x2!!

The British ruled the world at one stage so why aren't the rest of the ex Empire doing as well in the named disciplines?



No, the reason we do so well in Horse Racing is down to the tax incentives given to horse breeders.

Answer 1. It's a bit much to take credit for an industry almost completely run by people who 50 years ago wouldn't be regarded as Irish.

Answer 2. The reason we got so many studs is because of the granting of land by the British government to specific families from the UK. Those families were into horses. That's the reason.

Your third point perversely comes back around to what we were talking about earlier, and I'm fairly sure doesn't prove your point in any way. The reason they've incentivised horse breeding in this country is because the owners would be on the first trip elsewhere if they didn't.
Not many other sports where that would happen, then again not many sports are industries that are as uniquely Anglo Irish as horse racing.

ianuss

Excuse me while I go off topic on the off topic thread.....

Seriously, some people should not be allowed to have kids....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-zPj39PLYtU

ill give you horse racing JT but from what i hear its on borrowed time being tax free and no harm imo
depending on your beliefs we all came from somewhere/place far from Ireland, reminds me of that ''bord na mona man'' song

Is mise le key

jtsuited wrote: »

Feck off Baz, the whole industry and structure of the whole thing is British made. The reason 'we' do well in horse racing is because there are just loads and loads of racehorses bred in loads and loads of studs in Ireland (that largely weren't owned or founded by Irish people).

I would agree with baz here, just because you didnt invent something doesnt mean you cant take rightful pride at being great at it.

The pakistani teams are exceptional at cricket & proud of it & admired by the rest of the world.

Similar again the all blacks & rugby

Similar again the brazilians & soccer

Is mise, how many cricket clubs were in Ireland at the turn of the 20th century? glad we dropped that one

Android 666

BaZmO* wrote: »

Bang the Box? Nice title

Not as good as Sex Bang.

g5fd6ow0hseima

Is mise le key wrote: »

The pakistani teams are exceptional at cricket & proud of it & admired by the rest of the world.

Unlike the Brazilians & Kiwis who are top of soccer and rugby, Pakistan is one of the worst test playing nations, and they are witnessing a massive fall from grace for the past decade or so. I doubt there will be much cricket played in Pakistan in 30 years, given that the country is sliding towards the stone age. It's only a matter of time before the popular opinion within Pakistan will hold cricket to be a 'western' colonial legacy. I honestly fear for Pakistan as a whole.

India on the other hand.........

Android 666

Jamie Future Needle wrote: »

India on the other hand.........

…is very smelly?

Android 666

g5fd6ow0hseima

Android 666 wrote: »

…is very smelly?

a brilliant cricketing nation.

ianuss

Jeff will love these

http://thesocietypages.org/socimages/2010/12/07/baby-worshipper-an-example-of-religious-socialization/

http://thesocietypages.org/socimages/2011/01/11/baby-preacher-an-example-of-religious-socialization/

Pace2008

Absolutely mad that stuff is considered far game in some places. In fact, it's mad that religion gets special treatment in that it's acceptable for the parents to label a child, who has no concept of belief, based on their own religious inclination.

It’s like parents who support Sinn Féin calling their child a Republican baby,

ianuss

Pace2008 wrote: »

Absolutely mad that stuff is considered far game in some places. In fact, it's mad that religion gets special treatment in that it's acceptable for the parents to label a child, who has no concept of belief, based on their own religious inclination.

It’s like parents who support Sinn Féin calling their child a Republican baby,

I'm undecided on that one. I've been watching loads of Dawkins stuf the last few days after all the religious furore in this thread. I know he says it's like calling a child a socialist or whatever, but I just think there's more ceremonial nonsesne involved in religion as opposed to holding political ideals. But it does seem unfair to give a child no choice in the matter all the same.

And after watching so much of Dawkins' stuff, I actually think I'm an atheist. Previously, I'd never really given it much thought. I always assumed I was agnostic. I've got zero time for religion, and I don't believe in any of that rubbish in the bible either, and I never really did tbh. I think I cared so little about religion, and it played such a non-existent role in my life that I never bothered reading about it at all.

This thread has made me seriously reconsider my point of view on having kids baptised/go to catholic schools etc.

Android 666

ianuss wrote: »

Jeff will love these

http://thesocietypages.org/socimages/2010/12/07/baby-worshipper-an-example-of-religious-socialization/

http://thesocietypages.org/socimages/2011/01/11/baby-preacher-an-example-of-religious-socialization/

I wish they'd stop posting videos of my kids up on the web…

joker77

ianuss wrote: »

I'm undecided on that one. I've been watching loads of Dawkins stuf the last few days after all the religious furore in this thread. I know he says it's like calling a child a socialist or whatever, but I just think there's more ceremonial nonsesne involved in religion as opposed to holding political ideals. But it does seem unfair to give a child no choice in the matter all the same.

And after watching so much of Dawkins' stuff, I actually think I'm an atheist. Previously, I'd never really given it much thought. I always assumed I was agnostic. I've got zero time for religion, and I don't believe in any of that rubbish in the bible either, and I never really did tbh. I think I cared so little about religion, and it played such a non-existent role in my life that I never bothered reading about it at all.

This thread has made me seriously reconsider my point of view on having kids baptised/go to catholic schools etc.

I think it's the same for a lot of people - when they spend a bit of time thinking about it for themselves, a realisation hits.

Oh and WooHoo! Another one for the cause

Pandoras Twist

My dads family are all quite religious and old fashioned, with a few of my relatives in the clergy.

He fell out of habit of going to church etc a long time ago but the combination of A Short History of Nearly Everything by Bill Bryson and the God Delusion have turned him into a firm athiest. He's started trying to disillusion my uncle now.

Pace2008

ianuss wrote: »

I'm undecided on that one. I've been watching loads of Dawkins stuf the last few days after all the religious furore in this thread. I know he says it's like calling a child a socialist or whatever, but I just think there's more ceremonial nonsesne involved in religion as opposed to holding political ideals. But it does seem unfair to give a child no choice in the matter all the same.

It's a tricky one alright. I believe parents should let their children make their minds up for themselves, they should provide the framework in which the kids are able to do this, but they still can’t just leave them to their own devices from day one. They have to teach them values, values which will rub off to some extent one way another anyway. And if they honestly think that following their religion is the only way to, I can’t see much that can be done to stop it. Problem is…

And after watching so much of Dawkins' stuff, I actually think I'm an atheist. Previously, I'd never really given it much thought. I always assumed I was agnostic.

…most people aren’t that into the whole thought thing. They’ll take for granted what they’re told, they’ll believe in god because their parents believed in god, and they’ll baptise their children because it’s the done thing. And so the self-perpetuating cycle continues.

Which is why I think it’s necessary to convince the world that the idea of god, or organised religion at the least, is nonsense.

I think I cared so little about religion, and it played such a non-existent role in my life that I never bothered reading about it at all.

Same, at least as far as reading goes. In my family, it’s basically taken as axiomatic that god exists. Until I was about 18, it wasn’t even a consideration, and any doubts I had were pushed aside pretty quickly. I can’t even remember what prompted me exactly - I think I kept seeing Dawkins’s name popping up everywhere and had to see what all the fuss was about - but eventually I started looking into the literature and pretty much decided that I’d never really believed in god, or at least that I’d actually never had any concept of what he was supposed to be anyway. Any feeling of god’s presence was just internal dialogue, any attempt at prayer was just self-reassurance and wishful thinking, and the whole thing was centered around the fact that it’s not nice when people you know die.

I have to laugh when I see people harping on about “militant atheists,” and claiming they don’t need to justify why the believe in God, they “just do.” I was in their shoes a few years ago. I got annoyed when people would question the existence of God, and would have given “faith” or something similarly unsubstantial as my basis. I’d think of all atheists as arrogant because, behind it all, if what they were saying was true then I wouldn’t see my dead relatives when I died myself.

I bit the bullet and changed my viewpoint as it just made sense. Most people won’t get as far as reading Dawkins’s stuff because he’s an arrogant atheist.

ianuss

Pace2008 wrote: »

Which is why I think it’s necessary to convince the world that the idea of god, or organised religion at the least, is nonsense.

Most people won’t get as far as reading Dawkins’s stuff because he’s an arrogant atheist.

Best of luck getting the world to change. It would be a brave person who would openly question some beliefs of the nuts along the southern US bible belt. There was one guy interviewed in The God Delusion, a lawyer, who defended some nutjob who'd murdered an abortion doctor - and he was fine with the murder.....he even reckoned the murderer was up in heaven. These are dangerous people.

I thought some of Dawkins' reactions to answers given by religious people to some of his questions was hilarious. He was almost dumbfounded at some of them. His conviction and knowledge on the whole issue is very impressive - he has good cause to be so arrogant IMO.

jtsuited

Pace2008 wrote: »

It's a tricky one alright. I believe parents should let their children make their minds up for themselves, they should provide the framework in which the kids are able to do this, but they still can’t just leave them to their own devices from day one. They have to teach them values, values which will rub off to some extent one way another anyway. And if they honestly think that following their religion is the only way to, I can’t see much that can be done to stop it. Problem is…

…most people aren’t that into the whole thought thing. They’ll take for granted what they’re told, they’ll believe in god because their parents believed in god, and they’ll baptise their children because it’s the done thing. And so the self-perpetuating cycle continues.

Which is why I think it’s necessary to convince the world that the idea of god, or organised religion at the least, is nonsense.

I think I cared so little about religion, and it played such a non-existent role in my life that I never bothered reading about it at all.[/quote] Same, at least as far as reading goes. In my family, it’s basically taken as axiomatic that god exists. Until I was about 18, it wasn’t even a consideration, and any doubts I had were pushed aside pretty quickly. I can’t even remember what prompted me exactly - I think I kept seeing Dawkins’s name popping up everywhere and had to see what all the fuss was about - but eventually I started looking into the literature and pretty much decided that I’d never really believed in god, or at least that I’d actually never had any concept of what he was supposed to be anyway. Any feeling of god’s presence was just internal dialogue, any attempt at prayer was just self-reassurance and wishful thinking, and the whole thing was centered around the fact that it’s not nice when people you know die.

I have to laugh when I see people harping on about “militant atheists,” and claiming they don’t need to justify why the believe in God, they “just do.” I was in their shoes a few years ago. I got annoyed when people would question the existence of God, and would have given “faith” or something similarly unsubstantial as my basis. I’d think of all atheists as arrogant because, behind it all, if what they were saying was true then I wouldn’t see my dead relatives when I died myself.

I bit the bullet and changed my viewpoint as it just made sense. Most people won’t get as far as reading Dawkins’s stuff because he’s an arrogant atheist.[/QUOTE]
the 'arrogant atheist' thing drives me nuts. There is no way of telling someone that they are massively wrong in both their beliefs and thought processes without coming across as arrogant. But it's demonstrably true that they are.
Really really drives me nuts when people get all 'well you have your beliefs and they have theirs' too. The only beliefs I hold are based on observation and logic, while theirs are based on the denial of observation and logic. To put science down as just another 'belief system' is mental.
Actually, it came to a head a while ago when I was arguing with a family member about this very point.
I said you can't cherry pick science, say you don't believe parts of it and then trust it with your life. The example I gave was ignoring evolution but then receiving cancer treatment. According to their logic, both are based on the same 'belief system'. Unfortunately, I was then told about people recovering from cancer through homeopathy and I just left it there for the sake of my blood pressure!

jtsuited

ianuss wrote: »

I thought some of Dawkins' reactions to answers given by religious people to some of his questions was hilarious. He was almost dumbfounded at some of them. His conviction and knowledge on the whole issue is very impressive - he has good cause to be so arrogant IMO.

I think this is lost on most people who think Dawkins is arrogant. If you read the Ancestor's Tale or The Blind Watchmaker or Climbing Mount Improbable, you wonder who the fcuk is putting him in front of such retards on a constant basis.
I think he must genuinely get some lulz out of it, but I think he grants some of the clueless idiots he encounters far too much respect.

BaZmO*

Jaysis lads, learn how to quote properly!


As for Dawkins being arrogant. I've said this loads of this at this stage but look who he's dealing with. He gets dog's abuse for the most part and has to try and justify scientific fact to people over and over again. When he's engaged in genuine debate he is extremely polite and courteous.

electrogrimey

Some of you may be interested in a new mix for Forward/Slash, house & tech-house, by one of the Trainwreck residents, Jon-Oh. Really nice.

http://forwardslashdublin.wordpress.com/2011/01/11/forwardslash-guest-mix-3-jon-oh/

BaZmO*

This one's for our resident God botherer

jtsuited

love it!