Spring RTS Engine

I'm not even going to read the rest

Maybe if you'd read the rest you'd know.

Ok I just did and your statement still has nothing to do with immigration. It's about trading.

When I talk about discriminating, I mean treating an individual or group of people differently because of trait that belongs only to that group or individual.

More accurately, a trait that is perceived to belong only to that group, which is the crux of prejudism. You don't hate brown people because they're brown, but because you believe all brown people act a certain way (are terrorists/criminals/thugs/terk yer jerb/etc), which ultimately results in the same thing, which you're trying to avoid by playing semantics with definitions.

Again, why are you just making things up? I don't hate black people, I never said I have and never will do. In fact, I don't hate anybody. Hate is a strong word and I would only apply it to particular individuals of whom I have a personal knowledge and relationship with.

It's funny that you bring up Nazis and how you "dont want them in your country, now is that a bad thing?" and how you've tried to connect the barbaric genocide conducted by Nazis with immigrants taking your jobs.

Again, what? I used them as an example to explain Peet's statement. This has nothing to do with my views about immigration.

Sucky_Lord wrote:So to sum it all up: Jaz has some pretty shit parenting

My parents are Christian.

Sucky_Lord wrote:But imo there is no place for racists in england

Moreover, there is no place for racists in the world. Perhaps an island should be devoted for racists?

Jazcash wrote:

Sucky_Lord wrote:So to sum it all up: Jaz has some pretty shit parenting

My parents are Christian.

For a christian reader, this means perfect parenting, but for an atheist reader, it means awful twistedly sick parenting.

Sucky_Lord wrote:Moreover, there is no place for racists in the world. Perhaps an island should be devoted for racists?

Wouldn't that be discriminatory against racists?

Jazcash wrote:Of course, in most cases this is a bad thing. But for example, there are a few nazis left in the world. Are you calling me "racist" for wanting them out of my country?

Do you have any particular reason to dislike Nazis, or is just because you were told it's a no-no to like them?

Jazcash wrote:I support them because I agree with 90% of their policies which nobody seems to be arguing against?

You'll have to pardon the brevity, as I have limited access to information and coverage on BNP policy. I will put up points from the information available, and evaluate them. Prejudicial stances earlier discussed will not be included in this post.

Economics

• State Driven Economics - Too vague to evaluate, sounds like Command Economics which works in limited periods with limited scope, but does not work otherwise, and would not be viable in the long-term for the U.K.
• British Ownership Of Industries & Resources - Too vague to evaluate, sounds like Nationalization of internal assets, which coincides with the first point but is similarly a mixed bag. Seems to ignore the consideration that many British Industries & Resources upon which the nation depends are in fact elsewhere.
• Self-Sufficiency In Food Production - Laudable, though of course, the U.K. will always be dependent on importation for luxury foods, and luxury foods are a strong element of the culture. I support this point to an extent.
• Distributionism & Small Business - Too vague to evaluate, would require withdrawl from global economy but might be a healthy decision given other conditions.
• Non-Destructive Means Of Reducing Income Inequality - A weak point, the BNP does not want to commit to taxation and thus has proposed no solution, doctored up in a hopeful statement. This point alone indicates that there are few if any economically astute minds behind this party, though they do get points for addressing inequality.
• Increased Share Ownership/Worker Cooperatives - Coincides with Small Business focus, ideal for a high quality/high cost culture of production but such would depend upon heavy exportation. Doesn't seem to fit with the rest of policy, but worthy of consideration.
• Cessation Of Foreign Aid - The United Kingdom has a great debt to pay to the world for the period of empire, and furthermore it is the responsibility of a global citizen to manage the globe, since one country will not survive isolate from others in the long-term. This decision might be permissible if the United Kingdom gave up all claims to international political and economic legitimacy.

Political/Social/Cultural

• Reintroduction Of Corporal Punishment - Serves no positive function.
• Reintroduction Of Capital Punishment - Capital punishment is a difficult point to discuss, particularly as it is a matter of great contention. I see no significant benefit to this change for the United Kingdom.
• Compulsory Military Service - A system which greatly discourages the light pursuit of war while preparing the population for various hardships is a system which has worked for Finland, Israel, Singapore and others. A conditional yes.
• Increased Military Spending - This makes little sense given the focus on economic isolationism/protectionism. The United Kingdom already has a strong military presence and strong military tradition.
• Annexation Of Ireland - If the Irish go for it and it is non-violent and the Irish obtain full rights, more power to all. Otherwise, no.
• Animal Rights/Welfare - Fair enough. Feels like an attempt to reach another fringe group, however.
• Anti-Homosexuality/Re-Closeting - I'm not going to say much on this, but this stance serves nobody well.

All in all, I find most of their policy points either misconcieved or immature, though as I said, some I am sympathetic with.

Jazcash wrote:

Sucky_Lord wrote:So to sum it all up: Jaz has some pretty shit parenting

My parents are Christian.

That doesn't say anything one way or the other for the quality of their parenting.

zwzsg wrote:

Jazcash wrote:

Sucky_Lord wrote:So to sum it all up: Jaz has some pretty shit parenting

My parents are Christian.

For a christian reader, this means perfect parenting, but for an atheist reader, it means awful twistedly sick parenting.

Well, the Christian morals are by no means sick or twisted. In fact, if somebody is to have good morals, it generally means Christian morals.

zwzsg wrote:

Sucky_Lord wrote:Moreover, there is no place for racists in the world. Perhaps an island should be devoted for racists?

Wouldn't that be discriminatory against racists?

Sucky didn't say that, I did. And yes, it would

zwzsg wrote:

Jazcash wrote:Of course, in most cases this is a bad thing. But for example, there are a few nazis left in the world. Are you calling me "racist" for wanting them out of my country?

Do you have any particular reason to dislike Nazis, or is just because you were told it's a no-no to like them?

I do not hate the nazis, simply because I don't have enough understanding to know who they were or why they did the things they did. It's all about frame of mind and context. However, I'm sure, if I was alive in the same period as the nazis, I can quite confidently say I would dislike them simply because of whom I am. But again, my thoughts about the nazis would be based upon only a select few because of what they may have done.

Neddie wrote:

Jazcash wrote:

Sucky_Lord wrote:So to sum it all up: Jaz has some pretty shit parenting

My parents are Christian.

That doesn't say anything one way or the other for the quality of their parenting.

I mean actual Christians. Not people who've been to church once or twice and were christened as Christians.

-------------------

BNP's manifesto:

Jazcash wrote:I mean actual Christians. Not people who've been to church once or twice and were christened as Christians.

That still doesn't say anything significant one way or the other for the quality of their parenting. Parenting is a collection of actions, and while these actions may be influenced by the religious beliefs of the parents, there is no consistent impact rendered by a particular religious position.

Neddie wrote:

Jazcash wrote:I mean actual Christians. Not people who've been to church once or twice and were christened as Christians.

That still doesn't say anything significant one way or the other for the quality of their parenting. Parenting is a collection of actions, and while these actions may be influenced by the religious beliefs of the parents, there is no consistent impact rendered by a particular religious position.

Read some more into the morals of Christianity and how a child should be raised. Proverbs is an interesting place to start.

Jazcash wrote:Read some more into the morals of Christianity and how a child should be raised. Proverbs is an interesting place to start.

Deuteronomy 13:6-8
'If your brother, or your son or daughter, or your beloved wife tries to secretly entice you, telling you to go and worship other gods, gods of people living near you, or far from you, or anywhere on earth, do not listen to him.'
Deuteronomy 13:8-9
'You must kill them. Show them no pity. And your hand must strike the first blow.'
Deuteronomy 13:9-10
'Then the hands of all the people. You shall stone them to death.'

Neddie wrote:

• Anti-Homosexuality/Re-Closeting - I'm not going to say much on this, but this stance serves nobody well.

I'd like to see Jazcash's thoughts on this point. He seems dedicated to edging around whether being opposed to Islamic influence is racist, so let's see if he pulls the same trick with more blatant homophobia!

zwzsg wrote:

Jazcash wrote:Read some more into the morals of Christianity and how a child should be raised. Proverbs is an interesting place to start.

Deuteronomy 13:6-8
'If your brother, or your son or daughter, or your beloved wife tries to secretly entice you, telling you to go and worship other gods, gods of people living near you, or far from you, or anywhere on earth, do not listen to him.'
Deuteronomy 13:8-9
'You must kill them. Show them no pity. And your hand must strike the first blow.'
Deuteronomy 13:9-10
'Then the hands of all the people. You shall stone them to death.'

As Forb quite rightly pointed out some time ago, The Old Testament is what happened before the birth of Jesus Christ and before he died for our sins. It is not to be taken in today's context in a literal manner.

Big Take wrote:

Neddie wrote:

• Anti-Homosexuality/Re-Closeting - I'm not going to say much on this, but this stance serves nobody well.

I'd like to see Jazcash's thoughts on this point. He seems dedicated to edging around whether being opposed to Islamic influence is racist, so let's see if he pulls the same trick with more blatant homophobia!

Quite happily. I am against all homosexuality and do not believe it is naturally or morally right.

I am against Islam.

I hope that's cleared things up.

Neddie wrote:[*]Animal Rights/Welfare - Fair enough. Feels like an attempt to reach another fringe group, however

IMO this is pretty much the easiest way to show they like the Nazis

Jazcash wrote: Quite happily. I am against all homosexuality and do not believe it is naturally or morally right.

I am against Islam.

I hope that's cleared things up.

It sure has! Do you also believe men and women aren't equal, because there's usually a pretty strong correlation between homophobia and sexism.

I'm really just trying to determine how rooted your way of thinking is to that Old Testament you claim shouldn't be taken literally :)

Jazcash wrote:Well, the Christian morals are by no means sick or twisted. In fact, if somebody is to have good morals, it generally means Christian morals.

No, absolutely not. I'm appauled at how disgustingly brainwashed you've been as a child.

Im not even going to go into the "sick and twisted" things done of God's behalf. Just read the Old Testament.

Ok i cant resist, just one example: "send rebuke upon them, vexation and fever, inflammation, pestilence to destroy them, extreme burning, blasting, mildew, the terrible botch of egypt, scabs, haemorrhoids, madness, blindness.." (Deuteronomy 28: 20-55)

I am against Islam.

we need to break this down a bit more man

everyone hates religious extremists, muslim, christian or otherwise...

there is a massive difference (i damn well hope anyways lol) between your parents, who are christian, and jeffery dahmer, also a christian. somebodys religion doesn't make them nuts, it's all the other crap that goes along with it... social standing, family life and umpteen other things.

even your form of christianity (making a bold leap here because i know you live in the UK) differs from most of the other forms around the world, iirc your religious leaders are in the church of england, not the vatican.

anyways. maybe just say "i am against islamic nutjobs" because that is probably more accurate, or even better "i am against people who use religion as an excuse to do messed up stuff."

and hell, if you want to be against all of islam, go for it, but the bottom line is that the only part of islam that is actually against you personally are the crazy dudes with neckbeards and c4 vests.

just at a guess i would say that over the entire course of history, christianity has caused more death and societal turmoil than islam (but in the last two centuries no)

Jazcash wrote:

Neddie wrote:

Jazcash wrote:I mean actual Christians. Not people who've been to church once or twice and were christened as Christians.

That still doesn't say anything significant one way or the other for the quality of their parenting. Parenting is a collection of actions, and while these actions may be influenced by the religious beliefs of the parents, there is no consistent impact rendered by a particular religious position.

Read some more into the morals of Christianity and how a child should be raised. Proverbs is an interesting place to start.

I'm quite aware of the tenets of child raising and the model of morals expressed in the Bible as well as the apocrypha. It is difficult to evaluate whether or not they have been applied as directed and even when employed they do not have a consistent measured impact upon children which sets them above or below those raised other under principles or with other religious tenets.

Were you aware that the texts of Islam and Judaism similarly contain direction on child rearing and models of morality? These are even quite similar to those expressed in the Bible.

Big Take wrote:

Jazcash wrote: Quite happily. I am against all homosexuality and do not believe it is naturally or morally right.

I am against Islam.

I hope that's cleared things up.

It sure has! Do you also believe men and women aren't equal, because there's usually a pretty strong correlation between homophobia and sexism.

In what sense? Physically? Authoritry? Psychologically?

A correlation between sexism and homophobia? Don't be ridiculous.
Just because I don't believe a man should put his cock into another man's ass doesn't make me sexist. Some people's use of the term racism and sexism seems seriously deluded. Are you just trolling me or what?

Jazcash wrote:I don't believe a man should put his cock into another mans ass

But to what length would you go to prevent that from happening?

zwzsg wrote:But to what length would you go to prevent that from happening?

inb4 six inches