Cunt of the Month: Gordon Mursell
Gordon Mursell says, "if you question anthropogenic climate change then you are a incestuous, paedophile rapist. And now, if the children would like to make their way to the creche where they are instructed to look into the eyes, not around the eyes, into the eyes, you're feeling sleepy... Now, god exists: OK?"Like Longrider, I am tolerant of religious types; if they want to believe in some imaginary friend in the sky then that's fine, as long as they leave me the fuck alone. However, when total fuckbaskets like Gordon Mursell pop up and use their position of authority in order to write total fucking arsebiscuits, I find that my tolerance is stretched to breaking point.
An Anglican Bishop has compared people who fail to take action to prevent global warming to the Austrian man who locked his daughter up in a cellar for 24 years, repeatedly raping her and fathering seven of her children.
The Bishop of Stafford, Gordon Mursell, said that by failing to face up to the truth about climate change, we were - like Josef Fritzl - denying our children a future.
Now, I don't expect some ignorant, double-chinned cunt who believes in a sky-fairy to understand the rudiments of science because, let's face it, scientific theories tend to be rooted in evidence and few who believe in the existence of a god are going to be conversant with such a word.
On the other hand, the man's claim is so fucking outrageous that I find myself unable to smile tolerantly.
He stressed that he was not accusing those who do nothing about global warming of being child abusers...
Actually, that is precisely what you are doing, Gordon; and you know what? Fuck you, cunt-face.
... but said that shocking analogies were needed to force people to face up to the threat to the future of mankind.
Oh, do fuck off. The science of anthropogenic global warming is far from settled, despite what some would have you believe; further, the idea that said warming is actually a threat is also utterly unproven.
I am not going to go through all of the arguments again: you can find plenty on this blog and others.
In a pastoral letter distributed in parish magazines throughout the Diocese of Lichfield, the Bishop wrote: "Josef Fritzl represents merely the most extreme form of a very common philosophy of life: I will do what makes me happy, and if that causes others to suffer, hard luck.
Well, you aren't entirely wrong there, Gordon; however, as regular readers will know, I ascribe this attitude to the infantilisation of the population by the Welfare State and its adherents. Oh, yeah, and to cunts like this Bishop whose child-like analogy and infantile lack of subtlety is entirely consistent with such a diagnosis.
"In fact you could argue that, by our refusal to face the truth about climate change, we are as guilty as he is - we are in effect locking our children and grandchildren into a world with no future and throwing away the key.
One could argue that, Gordon, but I really don't think that you should. Because it makes you look like the prick that you so evidently are.
"We are right to be disgusted at these crimes. But mere disgust is too convenient. There are lessons for all of us to learn."
What—that it is entirely possible for people to do extraordinarily evil things?
This morning, Mr Mursell told the BBC Radio 4 Today programme: "I don't wish to shock people unnecessarily and I am in no way trying to imply that people who ignore climate change are child abusers - of course not.
Yes, you fucking are. At least have the courage of your convictions, you evil little cunt.
"I am simply trying to use an analogy to get people to wake up to the consequences of what we are failing to do, because if we don't there won't be a future for our children either."
Yes, there will. Go fuck yourself.
He added: "The problem with climate change is - as I heard Prince Charles arguing very eloquently a couple of weeks ago - that it is terribly hard to get people to see the seriousness of it, because the consequences are not faced just by the person failing to take action now.
I am sure that Prince Charles is a lovely chap but the man talks to plants, for fuck's sake. Nor is he a scientist.
"(Fritzl) is a revolting person and it is hard to imagine a more monstrous crime.
"I think we have to try to find ways to get people to see the consequences of our failure to act on climate change. If we don't face those, all I am saying is we are destroying the future of our children just as he did.
"Could you not argue that if there is no future for our children and grandchildren, we will have been guilty of committing the most appalling crimes as well?"
Yes, but there is a massive fucking great "if" in there, piss-face. Seriously, go fuck yourself.
Still, it's quite entertaining, is it not, to see the adherent of one religion attacking those opposed to another religion?
Labels: climate, disingenuous cunts, environmentalism, lunacy, religion, stupidity, what the fuck?
| 16 blogger comments
| links to this post
16 Blogger Comments:
The truth about Climate change is that humans have little to do with it. Most people stay locked up in their own tight little worlds and never take a metaphorical walk outdoors to see what really happens, so they're easy to fool.
To compare those who are sceptical of the 'sky is falling' school of thought to an alleged child abuser is not only fallacious in the extreme, but a heinous slander. Wonder if it's actionable?
Christ all fucking mighty. What the fuck are we to do about the endless shit churned out by the Global Warming Bollocks industry. Our way of life our progress our ability to feed ourselves our ability to respond to the future are all being fucked by the ruinous actions already taken by politicians in thrall to these prats.Only despair seems appropriate. Which country's population will be the first to say FUCK OFF. Not Britain's --they seem only interested in crap TV getting rat arsed even assuming they had the ability to read any information on the subject given they have the reading age of 5 year old kids after 13 years of "education". I really do despair.
With pleasing symmetry, as the Bish let fly with his "climate denier" = Fritzl comments, the MMGW industry lets fly with a reason to kill your kids early:
http://tinyurl.com/ksjox
...because if we don't there won't be a future for our children either."
Yes, there will. Go fuck yourself.
Won't somebody please think of the children!
What a future they might have. Should CO2 continue to increase (for whatever reason) and temperatures gently creep upwards (if indeed they even are) they might well enjoy better crop yields, milder winters and the deserts in bloom. The ice caps will grow, increased rain will bring more fresh water and vast tracts of land will become suitable for agriculture.
More food, less barren land and less elderly dying from the cold. What a terrible thing to happen...
I am a Christian and I think this Bishop is talking bollocks, but there you go. I am no more responsible for the Church of England than I am for all the rest of the shite that is doled out in the name of Jesus Christ. I do ask though, that you remember I have a right to believe in the Sky Fairy, just as some of you do not, but on a purely doctrinal note, Jesus came into the world to save it, not to judge it and not to provide reasons for jumped up little tits to act all superior by making assertions and connections that are totally outwith their remit.
It may be simplistic of me to say so, but I have read no evidence that "climate change" is anything other than the normal ebb and flow of the Earth's natural cycle, unless you include the fact that it is a convenient way to keep us all taxed and subservient and driving drab little underpowered cars.
I consider myself a Christian but stopped going to church some time ago. I simply could not find a "Christian" church. Most of the churches in the UK and Australia (where I now reside) are not Christian in any meaningful sense. They have fallen headlong into green/pagan/nature worship alongside occasional promoting of "multicultural" values. You don't believe in "the sky fairy", well neither to they, and they find those of their parishoners who do to be an inconvenience.
Perhaps we could explain the finer nuances of this to the Bish by locking him up in a cellar for 24 years to be raped by anybody who fancied doing so (assuming that there are vengeful, gay, atheist climate change sceptics with a sense of humour out there).
Then let him out out and ask him if that's what he meant.
"Why is it so cold?" the Bish will wail on being released
"Because it's summer, you twat" comes the reply "It's much colder in winter"*
* Global cooling having kicked in by this stage.
What is all this fuss about Fritzl?
The last time an Austrian father hid his kids from the Authorities it got made into one of the most loved films of all time!
(hat tip to Viz)
obnoxio: That is fucked up in the extreme. Thanks for the link.
Seriously, this is much scarier than the topic of the original post - one bonkers bishop. This is a state-funded broadcaster effectively telling children they should kill themselves.
If God is so omnipotent why can't he sort it out for us? Is the dear old Bishop saying God can't guarantee a future for our kids? In that case God's not much use to me.
Gosh. I seem to have wandered into a school playground given the level of what passes for debate here.
You and your pals really are seriously lacking in gorm DK. I'd get yourselves down to the local chemists en masse, and sharpish, as I understand tubes of gorm are currently in short supply.
This bishop, being a part and a party to a faith based belief system (and therefore someone who has some expertise & knowledge of faith based belief systems) is merely commenting on the ultra-selfish attitudes based on much of what passes for modern libertarian thinking - "I can do what I like and stuff anyone else."
He uses a couple of examples of this attitude at the individual and collective levels. The comparison is valid becuase it identifies examples of this dogmatic attitude which are equally extreme in their consequences.
Of couse, a bishop, as a follower of a faith based belief system, is open to valid criticism of the negative impact of his faith based belief system. However, that does not preclude him, or disqualify him, to comment on the extreme negative outcomes of faith based belief systems - like the pseudo-science faith based belief system of there being no impact on the climate/environment from human activity - of those like yourselves who cling to your dogma without any considerations of the consequences on others who do not share such delusions.
Get over it. If you can't take it don't dish it out. Stay in your playground and leave the grown up debates to the grown ups.
Christ on a stick - he looks like a more evil Gyles Brandreth!
Hansell: "like the pseudo-science faith based belief system of there being no impact on the climate/environment from human activity"
I don't see DK saying that and nor do I for that matter. You have disingenuously inverted the reasoning here and it will not wash.
The issue is IF and it is a big big IF that human activity changes the climate in any significant negative and irreversible way. The AGM side has no conclusive proof. The Bishop is in the land of Faith and wants to pollute the whole globe with his hatstand irrationality of repenting for our carbon, confessing our consumption. Of course, carbon trading is the new Indulgence racket. Perfect fit...and why not, AGM is pretty much a religion with the same goals.
Thornhill: "I don't see DK saying that and nor do I for that matter. You have disingenuously inverted the reasoning here and it will not wash."
On the contrary try following DK's links back to his own blogs and other self-referential blogs that follow those lines of pseudo-scientific arguments. It's not difficult. Even my kids could manage it.
"The issue is IF and it is a big big IF that human activity changes the climate in any significant negative and irreversible way.2
Saying the issue is "if", once or over and over again, does not make it so. It does not even come close to a scientificlly based argument. It's akin to saying that the world is flat because I, Thornhill, say it is so.
"The AGM side has no conclusive proof."
Which means what exactly?
No proof that satisfies a faith based ideological position? In which case that position will never, ever, be reached because the issue is between two different and incompatible modes of thought - rational and faith; science and pseudo-science.
Or, alternatively, does it mean what it says on the tin?
In which case I suggest you and the rest of the kids in the playground also devote some time venting your spleen on the current scientific claim of "conclusive proof" for the motion of planets based on Newton's original observations and conclusions of motion, because on the basis of the defintion of "conclusive proof" required this claim also does not meet the same requirements.
This is because:
a) The motion of planets theory (as an example here) based on Newtons work is an observed approximation, a feature which fits the observed facts. It works for us as scientific proof because it's as close to an explanation of the real motion of planets as observation and experimentation that the reductionist approach to science can get. That's how science works.
I'm not prepared to Janet and John it for you - I've done this too many times and wasted too much time doing so in discussions like this.
What I will do, seeing as I like you today (I might not like you tomorrow?) is give you a pointer. A good starting point would be:
"The Collapse of Chaos" by Jack Cohen & Ian Stewart. ISDN 0-14-029125-3
and probably:
b) Because like the creationists who pop up arguing against evolutionary science (please note that the term I use here is evolutionary science rather than just "Darwin" or Darwinism") there are people in the world who, for whatever reason (behavioral changes in selfish unthinking levels and current modes of activity/ overconsumption? - which is where the bishop came in; ideological dogma; faith based certainties; or whatever), do not want it to be so.
If people want to put their head in the sand that's their business. However, whether it's wilful ignorance or otherwise, if that affects others then they should not be surprised or shocked to get called out on their position.
"Of course, carbon trading is the new Indulgence racket."
Of course it is. It does not tackle the issue and its just a means of maintaining business as usual - which is generally what those frightened of the scientific observation and the science want to maintain anyway. Can't have "my" right to do what the hell I want and have more of everything" being interfered with by the consequences of that behavior" can we??
Just because those wanting to maintain BAU chose a method, based on that motivation, like carbon trading, does not negate the science. Nor does it represent a reasoned argument for the conclusions you, among others, are clearly wishing for.
The clergy are certainly homogeneous to Fritzl. They seek to restrict people (and constrain them from common-sense) through downright deception, threats, and patriarchal arrogance.
You sound like a bit of a cunt to me. My name is the Reverend J.P. Wieloch, and I want to tell it like it is:-
First off, let me tell you about anal sex in hospitals. It's the poo thing that really gets my goat you know, seeing it stuck round the rim of my vastly enflated bell-end is even more off putting than pulling the old todger out only to find a peice of sweetcorn stuck up the japs-eye! Then try telling her to eat it as it forms part of her 'five a day' and waste not want not, and you can imagine the grief I get!
I remember this one time, I phone a sex line, and i was knocking one out - just the usual run of the mill Wednesday morning wank really, you know, groaning at the top of my voice, being sick in an ashtray, worming a thumb up my arse and scraping my finger nails down the wall until they bleed - usual run of the mill wednesday morning wank, any way - there I am - just speeding my way through the vinegar strokes when this old lady taps me on the shoulder and says 'hurry up young man, there's a big queue waiting for this phone box, you HAVE been on the phone for nearly 20 minutes now.' Honestly, has good old fashioned courtesy gone out of the window. I jizzed on her face - couldn't help it, it was her bottle top spectacles and grey mustache that did it. Wrong place wrong time i guess.
All for now.
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home