Page 2 of 3
Posted: 22 Aug 2007, 06:52
by jamesmcdonnell
Phenomenal-Nutrition wrote:jamesmcdonnell wrote:
I do worry sometimes and wonder if in losing religion we have a society which is falling apart at the seams, but I am not prepared to believe that going back in time hundreds and thousands of years to medieval, bronze age, or even earlier beliefs is the answer.
Actually losing religion is hurting society becaues it leaves a moral vacuum. We have no moral code. Whats more teachers aren't even aloud to teach ethics or the difference between right and wrong in case it offends some sensitive sorts.
Yes the best people may have great morals and ethics without religion, but the majority do not. The majority care less about their fellow man than ever and their goal in life are based around shallow materialism.
This is transcendent throughout our society from the self-serving politicians, to the mysoginist rappers, to the women who use men for money, to the parents who don't bother to teach the difference between right and wrong to the low life criminals.
The beauty of religion is it makes immoral selfish twats actually be moral and giving occasinally on the hope of getting into heavens. Bring back religous brain washing
The trouble with religion though is that it is rigid, and it ultimately relies on faith, rather than inquiry and knowledge. Anything that conflicts with the tenets of a religion becomes outlawed or prohibited.
I agree that religion gave us a set of rules to adhere to, however, I don't believe that religion is 'neccessary.'
What is needed is to draw together the disparate threads of our society, so that everyone feels they are pulling together in a common goal.
I have come up with a name for this mode of running our society, I shall call it 'socialism.' Oh....wait a minute...
Posted: 22 Aug 2007, 06:59
by jamesmcdonnell
boxingchatter wrote:Actually losing religion is hurting society becaues it leaves a moral vacuum. We have no moral code. Whats more teachers aren't even aloud to teach ethics or the difference between right and wrong in case it offends some sensitive sorts.
TOTAL rubbish! Humans DO have a moral code because natural selection has favoured behaviours where human co-operate and have compassion. We’ve had these behaviours for 10,000s of years – whereas the “great” 3 monolith religions have existed for less than 2,500 years.
And let’s look at the great “moral” guidance these awful bronze age books give us. How about infanticide (Abraham), or having sex with young girls (Moses, Mohammad), racism (Jesus) or genocide (Yawah – god)….
Excellently put....
I agree entirely that moral codes are part of natural selection, as co-operative behaviour is what allowed the relatively physically weak human species to survive in a hostile and dangerous world full of much stronger predators and the vageries of climate.
It is worth noting though, that humans for the vast majority of their history, lived in small tribes, which were around the same size as the troupes than the higher primates lived in.
Over time, these have grown into city states, then nations, then empires.
Ergo, we live in vast swathes to which evolutionarily we are not suited.
This is why we need to change our methods and mode of government, so that people feel much more empowered than they do now. Smaller groups running smaller areas of the country, with a sense of community and ownership.
How do we achieve this, I really don't know, but it's something that got smashed to pieces by central government in the 1980's when Thatcher broke the back of Liverpool and made an example of the city due to Derek Hatton's megalomania.
Posted: 22 Aug 2007, 07:07
by JC
What really annoys me about people saying without religion there is a moral vaccuum is that even religious people rely on their innate human morality.
For instance you may think you take thou shalt not steal or thou shalt not kill from the bible but the vast majority ignore the parts about not eating pork or stoning brides to death if they are found not to be virgins. How do you make decisions on what part of religious doctorine to follow if there is not an innate morality present in humans .
Re: Amir Khan's Angry Young Men
Posted: 22 Aug 2007, 07:11
by mattym
E wrote:TheRock wrote:E wrote:Watched this tonight. Not dissimlar to Bad Lad's Army or something like that.
Some of these kids have had a hard time and not sure I could take being advised on how to live my life by a 20 year old with a Jacob Mueller watch.
What I find truly distasteful is how the show is trying to push religion or more specifically Islam on these youngsters.
Humanity should be learning to live without these ancient myths, not to mention an intolerant, restrictive faith. Unbelievable.
They are not pushing islam religion on these youngsters,
however religion is important to avoid doing bad thing in life.
Jacob? I don't have a problem with it.. You don't need to be jealous.
Anyway, you only seen part 1.. more to come next week. I've enjoyed watching the show. Amir came across well and given some good advice, and he clearly had those boys' best at heart!
Nonsense religion is an oppressive, backward, primitive pseudo science and pseudo morality and is most definitely NOT important to "avoid doing bad things in life".
Most of the most peaceful open-minded people I know are atheist humanists. Religion provides a twisted morality.
agree ENTIRELY mate. Morals and ethics can exist without an unfounded primitive belief.
Posted: 22 Aug 2007, 07:18
by chief
Goz wrote:It looked awful. I watched one minute and changed channel.
I did
exactly the same Goz...
Posted: 22 Aug 2007, 07:27
by jamesmcdonnell
Terry D wrote:I agree broadly with you over certain issues James, I just like to play devils advocate over Khan's death-toll.
Smarter people than me work it out as a Khan soldier, on average, killing 100 people over his life. As I said these guys are smarter than me but what are the odds that many of these soldiers lived short, violent and brutish lives? In that case you could half the lifespan and put the number for some guys down to 50 kills at best. That is that is fish in a barrel why is no one stabbing Russell Crowe in the back numbers.
In that case the death burden falls onto other soldiers who now must kill 150 over their lives. Yet a battle could see them taken out in the first wave by arrow attacks so you could drop it to 0 for some soldiers and the other soldiers take up that burden to the point that your average Khan killer has a 250+ kill ratio over his lifespan. That is enough to make Jason Bourne and The Terminator wince.
Throw in soldiers dying before they kill due to travel, hygiene and accident and the overall number is bumped-up. Far be it from me to question this 350 per head kill-ratio but if you do all seems not to be right in Denmark, so we'll kill Denmark
My main point was that C20 seems one of insanity. I think we roughly agree on this. Personally I blame Jack The Ripper. A Zionist butcher (literally a butcher, skilled at cutting meat of the bone) who understood dialectical history and used his killing spree to objectify people, whip up European Ani-Semitism and, consequently, was directly responsible for the WW's, the holocaust and the Palestine conflict.
Jack is almost a bad a mother as Michael Dokes.
With the nuclear bomb I understand the logic but if a fight is signed between two bad mothers like Liston and Foreman only for one of them to decide he is going to get hurt so he sends in a spectator in his place I would be one to shout, "Oi! Foreman, no!"
I was strolling around Sacre Cur and Notre Dam at the weekend and although religion is responsible for bad it also brought a lot of good. You take the rough with the smooth.
Well the Mongols were vastly superior on the battlefield to their foes. They had cannon, rockets, gunpowder bombs, composite bows, incendiary devices, and all this and the most skilled horsemen in the world.
Every army that faced the Mongols in the open were absolutely destroyed, there was no other army in the world at that time who could cope with the Mongols combination of speed, manoueverability and finely honed battle tactics, not to mention technological know-how.
The only two notable defeats in the history of the Golden Horde, were due to a combination of the weather, disease, and unfamiliary battle terrain in Japan.
It's pretty hard to kill a guy travelling on horseback firing arrows at your from 50 yards away. Or two guys who are carrying a burning log between two ponies who then roll it down a hill towards you.
The Mongol Army was so far ahead of its enemies that their foes usually fled in panic and routed before they could inflict any serious casualties.
Posted: 22 Aug 2007, 07:40
by jamesmcdonnell
I meant 'so far' ahead of the enemy in terms of battle superiority, you complete melon!
Their battles with the chinese were on wide plains, perfectly suited to the Mongol battle tactics of engage, pepper with arrows, rockets, bombs, induce panic, disengage, regroup, repeat.
The Mongols had composite bows which allowed them to fire arrows more accurately over long distances than their enemies, and therefore could fire with impugnity without coming under fire themselves.
http://www.coldsiberia.org/monbow.htm
Posted: 22 Aug 2007, 07:46
by SticknMove
Terry D wrote:jamesmcdonnell wrote:Terry D wrote:I agree broadly with you over certain issues James, I just like to play devils advocate over Khan's death-toll.
Smarter people than me work it out as a Khan soldier, on average, killing 100 people over his life. As I said these guys are smarter than me but what are the odds that many of these soldiers lived short, violent and brutish lives? In that case you could half the lifespan and put the number for some guys down to 50 kills at best. That is that is fish in a barrel why is no one stabbing Russell Crowe in the back numbers.
In that case the death burden falls onto other soldiers who now must kill 150 over their lives. Yet a battle could see them taken out in the first wave by arrow attacks so you could drop it to 0 for some soldiers and the other soldiers take up that burden to the point that your average Khan killer has a 250+ kill ratio over his lifespan. That is enough to make Jason Bourne and The Terminator wince.
Throw in soldiers dying before they kill due to travel, hygiene and accident and the overall number is bumped-up. Far be it from me to question this 350 per head kill-ratio but if you do all seems not to be right in Denmark, so we'll kill Denmark
My main point was that C20 seems one of insanity. I think we roughly agree on this. Personally I blame Jack The Ripper. A Zionist butcher (literally a butcher, skilled at cutting meat of the bone) who understood dialectical history and used his killing spree to objectify people, whip up European Ani-Semitism and, consequently, was directly responsible for the WW's, the holocaust and the Palestine conflict.
Jack is almost a bad a mother as Michael Dokes.
With the nuclear bomb I understand the logic but if a fight is signed between two bad mothers like Liston and Foreman only for one of them to decide he is going to get hurt so he sends in a spectator in his place I would be one to shout, "Oi! Foreman, no!"
I was strolling around Sacre Cur and Notre Dam at the weekend and although religion is responsible for bad it also brought a lot of good. You take the rough with the smooth.
Well the Mongols were vastly superior on the battlefield to their foes. They had cannon, rockets, gunpowder bombs, composite bows, incendiary devices, and all this and the most skilled horsemen in the world.
Every army that faced the Mongols in the open were absolutely destroyed, there was no other army in the world at that time who could cope with the Mongols combination of speed, manoueverability and finely honed battle tactics, not to mention technological know-how.
The only two notable defeats in the history of the Golden Horde, were due to a combination of the weather, disease, and unfamiliary battle terrain in Japan.
It's pretty hard to kill a guy travelling on horseback firing arrows at your from 50 yards away. Or two guys who are carrying a burning log between two ponies who then roll it down a hill towards you.
The Mongol Army was so far ahead of its enemies that their foes usually fled in panic and routed before they could inflict any serious casualties.
So in that case how did they get to 100 kills per soldier?
You did yourself with that one James.
Horseback arrowing was a real skill but was used in specific contexts and terrains and could leave you open to attack yourself. Plus these kills are dependent on a person present to fire the arrow. Drop a nuke and you can be fifty years gone but still the death threat remains. Nuclear use, testing and warfare, will be killing long after you and I have gone, at least Khan had a finite kill-window.
I still dispute the figures of Khan's kills. There would be no time for relaxation and debauchery.
What has this got to do with Khan's Angry Young Men? Oh wait a minute...I see....As you were.
Posted: 22 Aug 2007, 07:49
by jamesmcdonnell
Yes, rather ironic that we have gone from Amir Khan to Genghis Khan....
Who knows, he may be related, Genghis Khan is supposed to have had hundreds of children, and therefor lots of descendants.
Every country ending in the word 'Stan' is a country that was touched by the hand of Genghis Khan or his descendants.
Posted: 22 Aug 2007, 08:04
by jamesmcdonnell
Terry D wrote:I'm not sure how fleeing without having serious casualties inflicted amounts to inflicting mass kills, you spacker. Nothing to do with distance, you say the Mongols rode in and everyone said "fook this" and gave up, so why the over inflated death toll?
Yeah they had success on horseback but the traditionally light infantry of China did gain its success late on. They bunkered down, sat it out and then overturned the weakened forces from within.
Very much like a fighter taking Tyson's early attacks then giving him a spank as he lost momentum. Fancy horse attacks are like short-term flurries.
As I say you can shoot as many arrows as you like, missile attacks, nuclear pollution and the like are in it for the long-haul. One teak-tough horse driven Mongol is not going to do as much damage as a geek at a satellite missile control terminal.
I said the enemy routed, routed means turning and fleeing, it doesn't mean you survive, it means the troops break ranks.
The chinese didn't have the weaponry to compete on even terms, their bows didn't have the range or accuracy of the Mongols, and they didn't have the skilled warriors or specially trained ponies the Mongols had.
Posted: 22 Aug 2007, 08:06
by jamesmcdonnell
Terry D wrote:jamesmcdonnell wrote:Yes, rather ironic that we have gone from Amir Khan to Genghis Khan....
Who knows, he may be related, Genghis Khan is supposed to have had hundreds of children, and therefor lots of descendants.
Every country ending in the word 'Stan' is a country that was touched by the hand of Genghis Khan or his descendants.
The crucial word is 'Khan'
Well, I'm sure the surname Khan has been appropriated by plenty of people over the years.
I remember reading some figure which was something like, one in 100 people in the world can trace their ancestry back somewhere to Genghis Khan's bloodline.
Posted: 22 Aug 2007, 08:12
by emma
boxingchatter wrote:And I thought the show was shite. Khan is a nice kid and a very decent pro boxer but he's not suited to this kinda show. He looked very "hands off" with the yobs to me and the design of the show was flawed (why didn't they take them to a boxing camp where there is no beer to guzzle and do nothing but training boxing and see the benifits of self-respect).
And I think we had yet another
Khan is not the super-star Warren thinks he is. He's not a big ticket seller, the poor kid gets booed a lot, and he is clearly a heavily protected fighter. First we had the BIG FIGHT LIVE changing it's name to "AMIR KHAN FIGHT LIVE" (was it ever Eubank Fight Live or Benn Fight Live - no) now we had Channel 4 stating "Amir Khan is a boxing sensation!!!!!!!!!!!"
Er, no. And unless he dumps Oliver Harrison and learns to move his head he never will be.
It was ok a bit boring. Did you hear when the narrator said 'amir who will be fighting for a world title soon' I thought he wont now.
Posted: 22 Aug 2007, 08:53
by Phenomenal-Nutrition
jamesmcdonnell wrote:Yes, rather ironic that we have gone from Amir Khan to Genghis Khan....
Who knows, he may be related, Genghis Khan is supposed to have had hundreds of children, and therefor lots of descendants.
Every country ending in the word 'Stan' is a country that was touched by the hand of Genghis Khan or his descendants.
Allot of tribes/famalies changed there name to 'Khan' to try and increase their standing and fortunes in society. If I was a Amir, I'd call myself Amir 'Ghenghis' Khan
Posted: 22 Aug 2007, 08:57
by dondada
Amir 'Chaka' Khan.
Next, please.
Posted: 22 Aug 2007, 08:58
by Phenomenal-Nutrition
Terry D wrote:your average Khan killer has a 250+ kill ratio over his lifespan. That is enough to make Jason Bourne and The Terminator wince.
.
They did Masacre a fair amount of civilians in villages/cities so it may not be as unlikely as you think
Posted: 22 Aug 2007, 09:00
by SticknMove
Here we go.....
Amir 'Certainly' Khan.
I'll leave the Amir 'Tomato' Khan for the detractors.
Posted: 22 Aug 2007, 10:37
by jamesmcdonnell
Not quite true Terry.
Khan and his men offered a simple choice. Join the Mongol Empire, and we allow you to live, follow your own religion, and join us.
Or...
Refuse to submit, and we will kill every man woman and child in your citadel.
Towns of 50,000 men women and children were put to the sword with no quarter given, their heads boiled, and the skulls stacked into a neat pyramid as a warning to those who would refuse the offer.
However, the Mongols Empire's success was largely due to assimilating the more useful aspects of other cultures, the best and brightest people of a society would be invited into the court of Chingis Khan as one of his advisers. They eventually became too fond of the more settled and luxurious existence of the peoples they conquered, and lost their way as a result.
A historical version of Haglers quote "It's hard to get up and jump in the saddle to go and burn a village, when you're wearing silk Pyjamas."
Posted: 22 Aug 2007, 10:52
by E
Rocky Balboa wrote: Wonder what's going to happen if they ever spar each other or Amir, for that matter?
Well, with AMir's chin, they've got every chance of knocking him out!
Posted: 22 Aug 2007, 11:08
by jamesmcdonnell
Yes, Hitler and Khan were empire builders who exterminated their perceived chosen enemy (Jews/Chinese), however, the actions of the likes of Stalin and Pol Pot are altogether harder to famine, given that they exterminated their own people.
Pol Pot in particular is a curious case. A member of a relatively priviledged family, educated in Paris who then returns to wage war on intellectuals, eventually exterminating people who wore glasses as it suggested they were reading banned books.
I think Pol and Uncle Joe were both mad. Stalin is supposed to have become unhinged after the death of his sister.
Posted: 22 Aug 2007, 11:24
by jamesmcdonnell
Sorry, meant to say his wife, you Sarcy Mancunian Khan(t)
Posted: 22 Aug 2007, 13:14
by Phenomenal-Nutrition
The things you learn from boxrec Amir Khan threads
Re: Amir Khan's Angry Young Men
Posted: 23 Aug 2007, 04:54
by E
verballistic wrote:E wrote:Watched this tonight. Not dissimlar to Bad Lad's Army or something like that.
Some of these kids have had a hard time and not sure I could take being advised on how to live my life by a 20 year old with a Jacob Mueller watch.
What I find truly distasteful is how the show is trying to push religion or more specifically Islam on these youngsters.
Humanity should be learning to live without these ancient myths, not to mention an intolerant, restrictive faith. Unbelievable.
since i am not in UK, i have no way of knowing...was the show actually called "amir khan's angry young men" by the TV network, or is that just a euphemism YOU have come up with? if not, what was the show's actual title?
anyone feel free to answer that...
No that is the title ofthe actual programme......and why the accusatory tone? (Capitalisation of the word 'YOU')
Posted: 23 Aug 2007, 05:00
by jamesmcdonnell
verballistic wrote:jamesmcdonnell wrote:Yes, rather ironic that we have gone from Amir Khan to Genghis Khan....
Who knows, he may be related, Genghis Khan is supposed to have had hundreds of children, and therefor lots of descendants.
Every country ending in the word 'Stan' is a country that was touched by the hand of Genghis Khan or his descendants.
interesting sidenote...most of the 'stans' are made up primarily of one ethnic group---kazakhs, uzbeks, turkmen, tadjiks, afghans---but
amir khan's homeland is different:
P=punjab, A=afghan, K=kashmir!!
Well blow me, you're right, so it does! Fascinating, didn't know that, and never heard anyone mention it before, how odd! Not that I didn't know it, just that I've never heard it mentioned. Yes, god bless the British Empire and their partitioning madness!
the wonders of british partitioning!!
Posted: 23 Aug 2007, 07:09
by Phenomenal-Nutrition
verballistic wrote:jamesmcdonnell wrote:Yes, rather ironic that we have gone from Amir Khan to Genghis Khan....
Who knows, he may be related, Genghis Khan is supposed to have had hundreds of children, and therefor lots of descendants.
Every country ending in the word 'Stan' is a country that was touched by the hand of Genghis Khan or his descendants.
interesting sidenote...most of the 'stans' are made up primarily of one ethnic group---kazakhs, uzbeks, turkmen, tadjiks, afghans---but
amir khan's homeland is different:
P=punjab, A=afghan, K=kashmir!!
the wonders of british partitioning!!
Paki translates to pure though doesn't it. Wasn't Pakistan partitioned by the muslim tribes alianced against Indian rule and not by the BRitish? There has always been allot of religous/tribal wars/persecutions throughout the Indian sub-continent
Posted: 23 Aug 2007, 07:44
by jamesmcdonnell
jamesmcdonnell wrote:verballistic wrote:jamesmcdonnell wrote:Yes, rather ironic that we have gone from Amir Khan to Genghis Khan....
Who knows, he may be related, Genghis Khan is supposed to have had hundreds of children, and therefor lots of descendants.
Every country ending in the word 'Stan' is a country that was touched by the hand of Genghis Khan or his descendants.
interesting sidenote...most of the 'stans' are made up primarily of one ethnic group---kazakhs, uzbeks, turkmen, tadjiks, afghans---but
amir khan's homeland is different:
P=punjab, A=afghan, K=kashmir!!
Well blow me, you're right, so it does! Fascinating, didn't know that, and never heard anyone mention it before, how odd! Not that I didn't know it, just that I've never heard it mentioned. Yes, god bless the British Empire and their partitioning madness!
the wonders of british partitioning!!
Well blow me, you're right, so it does! Fascinating, didn't know that, and never heard anyone mention it before, how odd! Not that I didn't know it, just that I've never heard it mentioned. Yes, god bless the British Empire and their partitioning madness!