BOF Posted February 14, 2012 Moderator Share Posted February 14, 2012 Cats shag doggystyle. Though I'd never actually thought of it like that 'til now. Thank you VillaTalk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjmooney Posted February 14, 2012 VT Supporter Share Posted February 14, 2012 Technically, Britain is still a Christian country is it not?Yes, it is. The Queen is the head of the Church of England. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonyh29 Posted February 14, 2012 Share Posted February 14, 2012 Cats shag doggystyle. feline like animals were around before canine like animals .. so it would have to be that dogs shag "cat style" surely ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
legov Posted February 14, 2012 Share Posted February 14, 2012 Technically, Britain is still a Christian country is it not?Yes, it is. The Queen is the head of the Church of England. I know rhetorical question. I was just trying to emphasise an obvious irony. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leemond2008 Posted February 14, 2012 Share Posted February 14, 2012 I just drew a picture of two dogs having it off with each other and the thought crossed my mind Your a strange strange man! you have no idea, my mind is the scariest place I know but the picture of two dogs having it off does actually have a little bit of relevance to something in the office, there was a little joke behind the reason I was drawing it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wiggyrichard Posted February 14, 2012 Share Posted February 14, 2012 I just drew a picture of two dogs having it off with each other and the thought crossed my mind Your a strange strange man! you have no idea, my mind is the scariest place I know but the picture of two dogs having it off does actually have a little bit of relevance to something in the office, there was a little joke behind the reason I was drawing it Dont be shy... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stevo985 Posted February 14, 2012 Author VT Supporter Share Posted February 14, 2012 Don't dogs actually shag back to back? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BOF Posted February 14, 2012 Moderator Share Posted February 14, 2012 Don't dogs actually shag back to back? No, they get stuck back to back after the event cuz the barbs (or similar, whatever they're called) in his helmet don't retract for a while. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stevo985 Posted February 14, 2012 Author VT Supporter Share Posted February 14, 2012 That'll teach them to go head first then. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonyh29 Posted February 14, 2012 Share Posted February 14, 2012 Don't dogs actually shag back to back? No, they get stuck back to back after the event cuz the barbs (or similar, whatever they're called) in his helmet don't retract for a while. hold that thought .... Is it the same for sheep ?? , if only we had a resident expert on such matters here on VT on an unrelated issue , anyone seen Bicks lately Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
legov Posted February 14, 2012 Share Posted February 14, 2012 Militant secularisation threat to religion, says Warsi Britain is under threat from a rising tide of "militant secularisation", a cabinet minister has warned. Religion is being "sidelined, marginalised and downgraded in the public sphere", Conservative co-chairwoman Baroness Warsi wrote in an article for the Daily Telegraph. The Muslim peer said Europe needed to become "more confident and more comfortable in its Christianity". She will also highlight the issue in a speech at the Vatican on Wednesday. "I will be arguing that to create a more just society, people need to feel stronger in their religious identities and more confident in their creeds," she wrote in the Telegraph. "In practice this means individuals not diluting their faiths and nations not denying their religious heritages." Baroness Warsi, who is Britain's first female Muslim cabinet minister, went on to write: "You cannot and should not extract these Christian foundations from the evolution of our nations any more than you can or should erase the spires from our landscapes." She wrote that examples of a "militant secularisation" taking hold of society could be seen in a number of things - "when signs of religion cannot be displayed or worn in government buildings; when states won't fund faith schools; and where religion is sidelined, marginalised and downgraded in the public sphere". She also compared the intolerance of religion with totalitarian regimes, which she said were "denying people the right to a religious identity because they were frightened of the concept of multiple identities". Her comments come days after the High Court ruled that a Devon town council had acted unlawfully by allowing prayers to be said at meetings. And, as BBC religious affairs correspondent Robert Pigott reports, the Church of England could soon lose its traditional role as the provider of the chief chaplain to the Prison Service. The Ministry of Justice has confirmed it is "considering arrangements" for appointing a new Chaplain-General - but the job might not go to an Anglican. Our correspondent says the move may be seen by some Anglicans as the latest sign of the reduced influence of the "established" Church of England in public affairs. On Baroness Warsi's article and speech, BBC political correspondent Louise Stewart said it was not the first time a senior Conservative had called for a revival of traditional Christian values. "Last December, Prime Minister David Cameron said the UK was a Christian country and 'should not be afraid to say so'," she said. The British Humanist Association (BHA) described Baroness Warsi's comments as "outdated, unwarranted and divisive". "In an increasingly non-religious and, at the same time, diverse society, we need policies that will emphasise what we have in common as citizens rather than what divides us," said BHA chief executive Andrew Copson. Baroness Warsi's two-day delegation of seven British ministers to the Holy See will include an audience with Pope Benedict XVI, who visited the UK in 2010. This visit marks the 30th anniversary of the re-establishment of full diplomatic ties between Britain and the Vatican. Meanwhile, new research suggests Britons who declare themselves Christian display low levels of belief and practice. Almost three quarters of the 1,136 people polled by Ipsos Mori agreed that religion should not influence public policy, and 92% agreed the law should apply to everyone equally, regardless of their personal beliefs. It also found that 61% of Christians agreed homosexuals should have the same legal rights in all aspects of their lives as heterosexuals. And a further 62% were in favour of a woman's right to have an abortion within the legal time limit. The survey was conducted for the Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science (UK), which describes itself as promoting "scientific education, rationalism and humanism". BBC If only. Mind you, Dawkins shot himself in the foot again this morning in a R4 debate with some godbotherer. Dawkins: "Most so-called Christians probably don't even know what the first book of the New Testament is" Godbotherer: "So what? Do you know the title of the first chapter of 'The Origin of Species'?" Dawkins: "Yes, I most certainly do" Godbotherer: "What is it, then?" Dawkins: "Er... er... 'The natural...' no, hang on, 'On the origin of the...", no, it's er... something to do with species and er... well, it doesn't matter, anyway". He does himself no favours at times. I'm uncomfortable with juxtaposing the Bible with The Origin of Species tbf - doing that seems to imply that Origin is equivalent to the Bible in the sense that it is an infallible book of everything that shouldn't be debated and skeptically analysed, which really, really isn't the case, but is unfortunately a common misconception. That's the reason why I don't like Darwin Day, or using the term "Darwinism" as a substitute for evolution by natural selection - I think these put Darwin and his books on an easily misinterpreted pedestal, thus helping to perpetuate the myth that "rationalists" are at our core really just religious people who worship "Evolution" in place of a deity or god. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjmooney Posted February 14, 2012 VT Supporter Share Posted February 14, 2012 I'm uncomfortable with juxtaposing the Bible with The Origin of Species tbf - doing that seems to imply that Origin is equivalent to the Bible in the sense that it is an infallible book of everything that shouldn't be debated and skeptically analysed, which really, really isn't the case, but is unfortunately a common misconception. That's the reason why I don't like Darwin Day, or using the term "Darwinism" as a substitute for evolution by natural selection - I think these put Darwin and his books on an easily misinterpreted pedestal, thus helping to perpetuate the myth that "rationalists" are at our core really just religious people who worship "Evolution" in place of a deity or god.I agree. I missed the beginning of the radio interview, so I don't know to which particular branch of mumbo-jumboism the godbotherer belonged. But being Radio 4, I would have guessed it was most likely to have been the C of E. In which case I was surprised he brought up Darwin, as evolution is accepted as fact by the vast majority of "mainstream" (sic) Christians; it's only the crazier fringes like the JWs and the American fundies who think it's even in doubt. But yes, there is a risk of falling into the trap that the godbotherers like to set, in treating atheism and scientific rationalism as an "alternative religion" - it absolutely isn't. Unfortunately, there are some atheists/agnostics (usually the former believers) who miss their old rituals and sense of community and try to create secular substitutes. The "pop philosophy" writer Alain de Botton (a lapsed Jew) has a book out at the moment - "Religion for Atheists" in which he argues for just that approach. I disagree strongly; yes, we all have rituals - they have their place as social bonding mechanisms and psychological comfort blankets - and there is nothing wrong with that at all. But for me, those secular rituals (football support is the classic one) are to do with social and cultural factors which are nothing to do with an absence of religious belief. What I am trying to get at is that atheists have less in common with each other than believers do. There is no "atheist community" in the way that there is a "Christian" or a "Muslim" community. We have no beliefs in common. All we have in common is an absence of belief - and who wants to build a cult around that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
legov Posted February 14, 2012 Share Posted February 14, 2012 Unfortunately, there are some atheists/agnostics (usually the former believers) who miss their old rituals and sense of community Personal question Mike - do you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
legov Posted February 14, 2012 Share Posted February 14, 2012 What I am trying to get at is that atheists have less in common with each other than believers do. Given the huge number of denominations for just about every major religion out there I'm not sure this is really true. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjmooney Posted February 14, 2012 VT Supporter Share Posted February 14, 2012 Unfortunately, there are some atheists/agnostics (usually the former believers) who miss their old rituals and sense of community Personal question Mike - do you?No, because I had very little religious experience as a kid. Although my parents self-identified as Christians (my dad Catholic, my mum C of E), and they had me baptised as a baby, they were not regular churchgoers beyond the usual weddings, christenings and funerals. So the only Xtian ritual I picked was at school - pretty token stuff, but it WAS taught as if it were "fact", something that made be quite angry when I began to think about it at the age of about 11 or 12. I was an atheist from that point on. Unlike my wife (who grew up going to church every Sunday, sang in the choir, etc.) who DOES miss the comfort of the rituals, I always feel pretty uncomfortable in churches - they rather give me the creeps. In fact I had to be in one last weekend for a family wedding. I simply stood quietly and took no part in the reciting of phrases, praying, etc. I was glad to get out. The only bit I DO like is singing Christmas carols, as it reminds me of that childhood thrill of Christmas eve. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
legov Posted February 14, 2012 Share Posted February 14, 2012 Unfortunately, there are some atheists/agnostics (usually the former believers) who miss their old rituals and sense of community Personal question Mike - do you?No, because I had very little religious experience as a kid. Although my parents self-identified as Christians (my dad Catholic, my mum C of E), and they had me baptised as a baby, they were not regular churchgoers beyond the usual weddings, christenings and funerals. So the only Xtian ritual I picked was at school - pretty token stuff, but it WAS taught as if it were "fact", something that made be quite angry when I began to think about it at the age of about 11 or 12. I was an atheist from that point on. Unlike my wife (who grew up going to church every Sunday, sang in the choir, etc.) who DOES miss the comfort of the rituals, I always feel pretty uncomfortable in churches - they rather give me the creeps. In fact I had to be in one last weekend for a family wedding. I simply stood quietly and took no part in the reciting of phrases, praying, etc. I was glad to get out. The only bit I DO like is singing Christmas carols, as it reminds me of that childhood thrill of Christmas eve. Interesting, even back in the time when I was still a Christian I never felt comfortable around churches, I'd go to services once in a while out of a sense of piety but never really enjoyed the rituals or the company - partly because my fellow churchgoers mostly talked about religious stuff like "Hey there's Bible study next Tues, you going?" or just general vapid conversation, which made me feel awkward. One thing I did enjoy was singing worship songs - some of the songs - although deep down I always knew that the spiritual feeling I got from doing so was just psychology at play and not, you know, the Holy Spirit flowing through the auditorium. So, as a kid and as an early teen I had more religious experience than you, but I never enjoyed it much. Hence why I don't miss the old religious life one bit. I do see value however in attending church rituals so as to understand Christian history and culture better - these days, I treat the occasional service I still go to with my father (he still thinks I'm Christian remember) as part of an intellectual pursuit. In a way it's like the Bible for me - much more beautiful when viewed from a critical perspective. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wiggyrichard Posted February 14, 2012 Share Posted February 14, 2012 If you havnt tried them yet, stop on the way back from work and buy a pack. They are the dogs cojones!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shillzz Posted February 14, 2012 Share Posted February 14, 2012 Not sure on that one, I could easily get drawn in by the fact that it has "Twix" written on the front, but do I risk it? I couldnt justify buying a twix and a pack of those. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wiggyrichard Posted February 14, 2012 Share Posted February 14, 2012 Well worth the risk my friend! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjmooney Posted February 14, 2012 VT Supporter Share Posted February 14, 2012 Aren't they just caramel shortbreads (aka "millionaires' shortbreads") under a Twix label? If so, they'll have to go some to beat THESE: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts