[Closed] So who inspires you?

Well I wasn't really taking notes but my main contention was the obviously biased agenda on which the narrative was delivered, the selectiveness of the evidence to support that agenda, the unnecessary vitriol in the delivery and a blatant lack of evidence of anything particularly untoward. As an envoy of the RC church, I'm not suprised that her views and mine would differ on abortion, as an envoy of the RC church, I'm not suprised that she rubbed shoulders with some despicable people on the world stage. Does any of that detract from her caring for crushingly poor and dying people, particularly before Muggeridge made her known ? Nope.

caring for crushingly poor and dying people

I thought that the original jumping off point was, that she didn't, whilst claiming that she did...

ack of evidence of anything particularly untoward

her views and mine would differ on abortion, as an envoy of the RC church, I'm not suprised that she rubbed shoulders with some despicable people on the world stage

bill gates to some degree

I thought that the original jumping off point was, that she didn't, whilst claiming that she did...

That would be just one area that this 'piece of jounalism' failed in then.

As for your other point, I don't see how pressing the flesh with the Haitian president means that she [i]didn't[/i] care for people in India.

Excellent propaganda from that Hitchens bloke though if it's made you make that leap.

Sorry, I think we either watched completely different videos, or we're living in different universes and this is just some sort of temporary appendix-like wormhole connection between the two.

Ah well...

I think it's more likely that we both just interpreted the 'evidence' through diferent filters.

Unlikely. We both saw a dingy hovel where dying people where denied any medical aid and untrained nuns administered inadequate medicines with dirty needles.

To me, that doesn't look like caring for the sick.

I don't know why it does, to you.

Well, i think the point has already been made on the thread that a different model of care based on a free for all, modernised health service would be preferred. If the point of the piece had been that Mother Theresa's work prohibited that from happening then I'd have been all for it.

It wasn't.

If the point of the piece had been that Mother Theresa's work prohibited that from happening then I'd have been all for it

Her "business" still receives 10's of millions of pounds per year and anecdotal evidence indicates none, if any has gone to the poor she claimed to be helping.
If you are saying that all of that is OK as long as it didnt "crowd out" alternative investment that would have provided care, if her "business" didnt exist, then I dont agree that is acceptable. Are you saying that she at best did little harm?
Hardly the CV of a Nobel prize winner.
(I may well be misinterpreting you)

I thought the point was that she claimed to care for the sick, when evidently no such thing was happening, but went on to use her new-found Muggeridge-enabled fame to cosy up to dictators and other monsters of that ilk and use the riches then gained to:

1: Set up more monasteries to further her dreadful business of maltreating the dying and spreading the miserable agenda of the horrible Catholic Pope, and

2: Pay for her own medical care in expensive Switzerland.

I'm more than willing to believe that the RC church syphons off well meaning cash into its own coffers, even if that belief is based on anecdotal evidence or even my own suspicious paranoia. What I don't believe is that any of it detracts from the work that she did in trying to care for crushingly poor and dying people.

work that she did in trying to care for crushingly poor and dying people.

I have to admit at this point, that I don't understand how that dreadful pit of dying for which she was responsible could be called "care".

Are you trying to suggest that she was well-meaning, but stupid?

I would imagine that what she provided for people was a little more care and comfort than they would have received dying, in many cases, alone and in agony in abject poverty on the streets of Calcutta.

What the video doesn't tell us is what funding she had pre Muggeridge to do what she was doing and it doesn't show any of the facilities post Muggeridge so we can judge for ourselves if extra funding had improved care or not.

My mum visited a hospice founded by Ma Teresa, in India. She said it was cleaner and provided better care than the 'proper' hospital she'd been working in. Have you ever been to one, Woppit/Surfer? Or do you choose instead to blindly accept the words of those with their own agenda against religion? I notice you've chosen to ignore the legacy of Ma Teresa's good works for which nations across the globe, and people of all faiths and beliefs, have commended her for. You chose instead to be 'inspired' by someone whose main sultana d'etre seems to be self-promotion and getting rich from the sale of books...

Not going to argue with Woppit any longer; he's clearly got his own evangelical agenda to try and force upon others. I can't take the words of a man who thinks bits of incredibly expensive 'hi-fi' cable make a 'difference' when all scientific evidents shows that they clearly don't, all that seriously tbh. Just seems like an angry bloke ranting about stuff. 😀

Carry on though Woppit; you're amusing. Hate hate hate. You'll do yourself a mischief.

Chill out feller, be more like me, peaceful and loving.

X

I note that you often tell us that you won't argue with me any more, as a precursor to, erm, arguing with me. So at least you're consistent in that.

Anyway, as to the before and after - that's interesting.

She said it was cleaner and provided better care than the 'proper' hospital she'd been working in.

That's interesting hearsay.

Can I please see some (ahem) evidence?

good works for which nations across the globe, and people of all faiths and beleifs, have commended her for

Show me.

Can I please see some (ahem) evidence? [of improved conditions]

Well, there was a lack of it from Hitchens wasn't there ?

Never ceases to amuse me how Woppit pours scorn and derision on anyone who dares to declare any sort of faith yet slavishly laps up whatever Hitchens ejaculates without question. Almost with a religious fervour...

Yes indeed. That could be because he chose to leave it out, or it could be that there isn't any.

I'd be interested to know which.

Also, I'd like to see the defence of her main objective- the anti-human campaign against termination and contraception, unlike THIS real (but horror of horrors, secular)heroine of the western world...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marie_Stopes

Never ceases to amuse me how Woppit pours scorn and derision on anyone who dares to declare any sort of faith

Not so. Show me where I have done that. Although this is an old request, never responded to by such as yourself, coyote...

I note that you often tell us that you won't argue with me any more, as a precursor to, erm, arguing with me. So at least you're consistent in that.

Heh!

But Woppit; you have views so firmly held, you're never going to change your point of view, are you? So what's the point in arguing? It becomes less about the actual issues, and more about [b]ego[/b]. This is something I've learned about my own compulsion to enter into 'debate' with others. Perhaps you might find it helpful to do similar.

Not so. Show me where I have done that.

It's throughout this thread, and every other thread where religion is mentioned. You do it all the time. The moment religion is mentioned, you're in there; attack attack attack. If you truly cannot see this, then you really need to take a step back and try to become more objective.

There's none so blind, as those who won't see...

Not so. Show me where I have done that. Although this is an old request, never responded to by such as yourself, coyote...

On *every* thread about religion. Accusing people who have a different opinion to you of believing in fairy tales is a particular favourite. Now to me, that is not really respecting others views and could be construed as scornful, no?

No. It's a perjorative description that seems perfectly accurate to me.

However, I've no wish to start up the whole tedious business of the "Theism vs Atheism" argument yet again, as I've nothing new to add or a belief that anybody can present any evidence for the opposite case.

As for elfinsafety, who is arguing after telling us that he will not any longer argue, and confuses "attack" with "argue", I rest my case.

At the risk of needing further repetition, as once again posters are trying to hijack the thread to attack me (rather than deal with the issue):

Yes indeed. That could be because he chose to leave it out, or it could be that there isn't any.

I'd be interested to know which.

Also, I'd like to see the defence of her main objective- the anti-human campaign against termination and contraception, unlike THIS real (but horror of horrors, secular)heroine of the western world...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marie_Stopes

So many of your posts contradict themselves that it becomes hardly worth the bother of paying them any attention, it seems to me.

I am more than happy for you to ignore my posts Woppit, in fact, I would rather that you did. As you quite rightly point out I'm not in the least bit interested in arguing with you .......why would I want to do that ? To make you "change your mind" ? I'm just happy to challenge and if necessary, to contradict some of the nonsense you come out with. And I suggest that you restrict your reactions to my posts in the same way, ie, just challenge, and if you feel that it's necessary, contradict. Don't waste your time trying to change my mind, that isn't going to happen any more than you are going change [i]your[/i] mind.

It would be very sad indeed if our fundamental beliefs stood on such shaky ground that an anonymous stranger on the internet could demolish them.

So anyway, let's move on ........what was it about Quentin Crisp which particularly inspires you ? I agree that he was a very brave man, but unless you are openly gay like he was, I can't see why he would particularly "inspire" someone.

I am more than happy for you to ignore my posts Woppit, in fact, I would rather that you did.

By all means.

Excellent. Although you would have made the point more powerfully, if you had just ignored my comments.

[i]I can't see why he would particularly "inspire" someone.[/i]

Tut tut, such a lack of imagination!

Quentin Crisp has been an inspiration to me and countless others for his attitude to housework; claiming that after 3 or 4 years (variously quoted) 'you don't notice the dust'.

IIRC there was however a caveat crikey , Mr Crisp had to wash his dinner plate every Friday on account that he ate fish on that day (fishy smells etc)

Which begs the question, "was Quentin Crisp a closet Catholic?"..............Woppit would be most upset 😐

Hmmm.

I can't help but feel you may be extrapolating ever so slightly in order to provoke a response from your own personal El Guapo?

My mum visited a hospice founded by Ma Teresa, in India. She said it was cleaner and provided better care than the 'proper' hospital she'd been working in

Empirical evidence, case closed. We can ignore the countless other anecdotes that despite the countless millions poured into her "business" every year (anecdotal evidence claiming that it even became difficult to count such was the volume) that standards are still no better than leaving people on the streets. A missed opportunity if ever there was one for religion to do good.

Empirical evidence, case closed. We can ignore the countless other anecdotes.......

😕 I'm not sure how dismissing overwhelming evidence which is recognised internationally by people who have absolutely no axe to grind, and instead willingly accept a contention which presented by a notoriously unreliable, contradictory, and confused, axe-grinding Tory-Trot, represents a more sensible proposition.

(It's probably also worth remembering that Hitchens is a guy who presumably chose to ignore the overwhelming evidence that smoking causes cancer, maybe he thought he "knew better" ? It certainly puts further into question his judgement, quite apart from his "am I a Trot am I a Tory" antics)

Even if Mother Teresa represented the greatest example the world has ever seen of a "saint", then Hitchens with his zealous woppit-like obsession that religion is the root of all evil, would still need to set about destroying her character. Indeed it would be even more imperative to do so......the thought of allowing unchallenged an example of someone who is motivated by their religious beliefs to do great good, would simply be too horrendous for him to even contemplate.

I'm sure Mother Teresa was "guilty" the day Hitchens decided she would be. Still, for me the fact she has been vilified by the likes of Hitchens goes a long way in re-enforcing the belief that she made a difference. All great people should be vilified.

But enough about Mother Teresa/Hitchens ........back to the original question. I've always thought Nelson Mandela was very inspirational. So I now look forward to be informed that he was in fact a terrorist.....I hope I'm not disappointed 🙂

[i]So I now look forward to be informed that he was in fact a terrorist[/i]

You should be looking forward to Christmas instead Ern, much more fun...

Life is always full of exciting revelations crikey ......... you never know where the next one is going to come from.

...you never know, but can occasionally hazard a guess. I'm thinking lasagne, from the direction of the kitchen, prepared by Mrs Crikey.

I could be wrong, it could be chicken in a basket by Angelina Jolie, but I suspect not.

I may be rambling, the result of wine after road biking but before dinner....

Kirsty Alsop.

Thread closed.

..you never know, but can occasionally hazard a guess.

I could never have predicted this revelation though.....

[img] [/img]

'Twas a sign warning me of my wickedness............I haven't touched a drop since 😯

😆

Qualitage.

Spike Milligan
Ken Kesey
Anders Hejlsberg
Homer Simpson

Why don't you Mutha Theresa arguers take it outside? Start a new thread and leave this to the original discussion. Might even be good as a general rule, perhaps get folks to think about whether or not a point is worth arguing about.

Galileo Galilei

Gaiileo, Figaro, Magnifico-co-co-co-co-co-co

Why don't you Mutha Theresa arguers take it outside? Start a new thread and leave this to the original discussion.

I think you'll find that the person who originally had an issue with Mother Teresa was the creator of this thread, so it sounds a little harsh demanding that he starts his own thread on the matter.

BTW, I've tried to move this thread away from Mother Teresa on at least two occasions, so thanks for bringing her up yet again.

I'm not sure how dismissing overwhelming evidence which is recognised internationally by people who have absolutely no axe to grind, and instead willingly accept a contention which presented by a notoriously unreliable, contradictory, and confused, axe-grinding Tory-Trot, represents a more sensible proposition.

What overwhelming evidence? What Freds mum said? Or should we trust in Muggeridges's sycophantic writings. When she is being lauded as a saint we are happy to dispense with our critical faculties and that pesky nuisance, evidence! When she is being criticised we demand chapter and verse.

(It's probably also worth remembering that Hitchens is a guy who presumably chose to ignore the overwhelming evidence that smoking causes cancer, maybe he thought he "knew better" ? It certainly puts further into question his judgement, quite apart from his "am I a Trot am I a Tory" antics)

It certainly adds fuel to the fire for you, not sure its of much significance for the discussion in general.

Hitchens is not a socialist, he is a zionist. However, he is a good writer and you do not have to agree with the politics of journalists to recognise the quality of their craft. To simply dismiss people like Hitchens reflects a deep and concerning conceptual and intellectual failing that I would recommend certain individuals would be as well to keep quiet about. They should do some reading so they know a little bit about what they make pronouncements on.

you do not have to agree with the politics of journalists to recognise the quality of their craft. To simply dismiss people like Hitchens reflects a deep and concerning conceptual and intellectual failing that I would recommend certain individuals would be as well to keep quiet about.

True. Goebbels was good at Marketing....

[img] [/img]

Isn't she sweet and wholesome, eh?

Did he make 'Marketing' a proper noun?

However, he is a good writer

Well, I've never knowingly read is writings but if he wrote the script for the Mother Theresa video then I'd have to disagree. Highly hyperbolic, polemic, selective and an almost adolescent desire to be controversial were my initial thoughts.

In fact, crap.

Hitchens is not a socialist, he is a zionist.

And according to himself, he's still a Marxist, make what you will out of that......personally is led me to conclude that he's full of crap.

[i]"intellectual failing that I would recommend certain individuals would be as well to keep quiet about"[/i]

You would rather certain individuals were quiet BillMC ? That's a rather Stalinist attitude for a Trot like yourself to be taking ....... if you don't mind me saying so. Still, hypocrisy and inconsistencies are hardly a rarity amongst Trot Tendencies.

And I am fully aware of my "intellectual" limitations btw. Again, how fitting that a Trot should so contemptuously look down on those with inferior intellect, eh ? I guess there's nothing which winds a revolutionary Trot more than the semi-literate uneducated masses.

Seems to have changed from a 'who inspires you' thread to some kind of who's my favourite communist conversation...

why should the two be mutually exclusive ?

in typical STW fashion gone right off topic... So back to OP. Beckham, a true modern day sporting legend..