Freedom of speech.

In regards to the EU or in regards to Britain? Corbyn has to support the EU because the radical left (who are a large base of his support) are largely rabidly pro-EU. It's very interesting how the radicals were previously anti-EU due to opposition to corporate influence and due to a lack of democratic representation and accountability. I suppose this is because the new doctrine holds that reducing immigration is for some reason a cardinal sin. This, once again, is very strange since the left should be looking to increase wages, which decreasing immigration does (1). The availability of surplus labour depresses wages and makes for a power dynamic that favors the employer. This also allows employers to get away with zero hour contracts and similar exploitation: because if you don't accept the terms someone else will.

Sources:

(1) https://www.theguardian.com/business/2019/jan/22/uk-pay-growth-employment-weekly-earnings

It would appear that on average everyone is getting richer, if you look at the data (1). In any case, is it inherently evil for a rich man to become richer?

Sources:

(1) https://www.cnbc.com/2018/09/19/world-bank-global-poverty-rate-drops-to- record-low.html

So capitalism isn't a system of the private ownership of property (e.g. the means of production) and the free exchange of goods and services?

it does not dictate our sovereignty.

Sovereignty means not being dictated to from above from another entity; it means full autonomy. The EU dictates to it's member states from above.

It's interesting that this would be debated in school since saying one sex is better than another is sexist. I don't particularly care but "Blacks vs whites, who is better?" just doesn't seem like a likely school debate topic.

I didn't create this debate, though 5/6 isn't bad.

"Love thy neighbour" applies only to humans, right?

Also, there are things in the Bible about treating animals well, for example Exodus 23:12 and Deuteronomy 22:4.

The costs are astronomically larger than in any socialized single-payer system.

There is a way to address the problem of health providers having all the power in the consumer relationship without a single-payer system. Obama first tabled the suggestion of a "Public Option" before "Single-payer" and what was eventually settled for (which gave the U.S. health insurance companies more power by the way - because now legally everyone has to have coverage in the U.S.). What do you think about the idea of a "Public Option"; a government run health insurance provider with the power of collective bargaining and the ability to compete with price gouging insurance companies in order to keep their prices down.

You asked what I would have done differently in Jesus’s shoes. I’m saying that I would have not said those things which are properly ignored and I would have added those things we have injected into interpretation, such as reason.

I was making the argument that since complex systems are so difficult to understand, while you may think your intervention would be better you have no way to know if it actually would have been.

Our elevated regard for humans depends on them being human. That’s not unconditional.

Jesus was only referring to humans though. So it's unconditional love for humans.

As awful as it is to consider the ending of a human life, someone needs disregard such empathy and do just that, in order to preserve human life. I don’t believe this position is consistent with unconditional love.

You can kill someone despite loving them on some level.

There are various views within Islam and not all inconsistency with western civ values.

Not sure exactly what you're saying here but I'm referring to the fact that Islam is so totalitarian (e.g. pray 5 times a day) and the fact that it calls for theocracy. This means anything similar to western civilization that might spring out of an area with such an ideology would be despite it, not because of it.

In Matthew 5:17 through 20, Jesus maintains the validity of the Old Testament, and stated that it is Law until the end. Paul expanded Christianity to include Gentiles.

He said he didn't "come to abolish the Law or the Prophets". Nonetheless, Christianity was not just for the Jewish state of Israel (see below). Linking back to the idea that God punished whole cities, since he didn't destroy every single city that wasn't Jewish it still doesn't follow that everywhere should be compelled to follow OT law. Further, these cities were either Jewish (under his theocratic rule) or completely debauched (e.g. Sodom). Note also that in Sodom God even said he would spare it if Abraham could find even 10 righteous people there.

Paul expanded Christianity to include Gentiles.

No, Jesus did that. Matthew 28:19-20 "Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age."

Interestingly, he didn't mention to teach gentiles the OT here, only his teachings.

The reason I said that is because you aren't independent if you are a part of the EU. I personally don't mind if the North wants to secede, I'm all for people being governed more locally.

All I hear at this point is...

Everything you quoted me saying there is factually accurate and comes from my own independent inquiry into the workings of the EU parliamentary system. Furthermore, I hate the conservatives and have never voted for them even once, so good luck with the argument of guilt by association there, followed by a string of straw men, things I don't agree with and slurs against minorities.