:clap: The Boy Owen got there first.

[Sir C]

"The love and solidarity of Mancunians shone through in their immediate response to the attack on the Arena. Let’s celebrate the city’s warmth and diversity"

'diversity' :rolleyes:

[Billy Goat Sverige]

"The love and solidarity of Mancunians shone through in their immediate response to the attack on the Arena. Let’s celebrate the city’s warmth and diversity"

'diversity' :rolleyes:

"And, inevitably, there are vultures driven by hatred already circling over this atrocity, and they will respond just as the terrorist wanted them to."

****.

[barrybueno]

"The love and solidarity of Mancunians shone through in their immediate response to the attack on the Arena. Let’s celebrate the city’s warmth and diversity"

'diversity' :rolleyes:

Why is that little **** getting involved? He only played for them right at the end of his career.

[IUFG]

"The love and solidarity of Mancunians shone through in their immediate response to the attack on the Arena. Let’s celebrate the city’s warmth and diversity"'diversity' :rolleyes:

what a massive ****. him, not you.

[World's End Stella]

You lot are looking for trouble where it doesn't exist. :rolleyes:

I'm no fan of the boy Jones, but there is really nothing wrong with that article at all.

[Sir C]

You lot are looking for trouble where it doesn't exist. :rolleyes:

I'm no fan of the boy Jones, but there is really nothing wrong with that article at all.

It is a crock of warped, diversionary shít.

"And let’s be mindful that whatever twisted motive was used to rationalise slaughtering laughing teenagers and children..."

I think we know what the twisted motive was. We're just not allowed to say it; instead, we must celebrate Manchester's 'diversity'.

[Monty92]

You lot are looking for trouble where it doesn't exist. :rolleyes:

I'm no fan of the boy Jones, but there is really nothing wrong with that article at all.

There's something wrong in the very first sentence.

"The hatred that drives someone to detonate themselves in a crowd of children and teenagers at a concert is impossible to reason with, to quantify, to properly understand"

It is not in any sense impossible to understand. To do what the attacker did is the most logical, rational act that a practicing, dutiful Muslim could ever commit.

[World's End Stella]

It is a crock of warped, diversionary shít.

"And let’s be mindful that whatever twisted motive was used to rationalise slaughtering laughing teenagers and children..."

I think we know what the twisted motive was. We're just not allowed to say it; instead, we must celebrate Manchester's 'diversity'.

I would object if he had suggested that it was wrong in any way to associate this sort of tragedy with our Muslim communities or Islam generally, something I think he has suggested in the past.

He hasn't done that in this case and has provided a reasonable view of the attacker, the attacker's motives, the city and how it has responded.

[World's End Stella]

There's something wrong in the very first sentence.

"The hatred that drives someone to detonate themselves in a crowd of children and teenagers at a concert is impossible to reason with, to quantify, to properly understand"

It is not in any sense impossible to understand. To do what the attacker did is the most logical, rational act that a practicing, dutiful Muslim could ever commit.

Rather surprising that we don't have a lot more of these attacks then, isn't it? What with there being 2.6 million people in this country who, in your view, practice a religion which encourages it.

The Islamic nutters take a very narrow, superficial view of Islam and what it means and, ironically, you seem to be doing the same thing.

[Monty92]

Rather surprising that we don't have a lot more of these attacks then, isn't it? What with there being 2.6 million people in this country who, in your view, practice a religion which encourages it.

The Islamic nutters take a very narrow, superficial view of Islam and what it means and, ironically, you seem to be doing the same thing.

You're denying that there are endless verses in the Quran and its associated texts that explictely call Muslims to war with nonbelievers for the sake of Islamic rule?

Thankfully, the overwhelming majority of Muslims choose to uphold a sanitised, distorted version of Islam - otherwise we'd be in even bigger trouble.

[Sir C]

Rather surprising that we don't have a lot more of these attacks then, isn't it? What with there being 2.6 million people in this country who, in your view, practice a religion which encourages it.

The Islamic nutters take a very narrow, superficial view of Islam and what it means and, ironically, you seem to be doing the same thing.

You are telling us that Islam does not encourage the slaughter of the kuffir? You are telling us that monty has made this up?

Do you think we ought to reprt him or something? He must be mental to think such a thing.

[World's End Stella]

You're denying that there are endless verses in the Quran and its associated texts that explictely call Muslims to war with nonbelievers for the sake of Islamic rule?

Thankfully, the overwhelming majority of Muslims choose to uphold a sanitised, distorted version of Islam - otherwise we'd be in even bigger trouble.

No, I'm saying that like any religion Islam has a holy book that is filled with contradiction and vagaries which therefore requires its followers to decide, to some extent, what they wish to believe and what they do not, how to act and how not to act.

The nutters take one view, the overwhelming majority take another. Quite why you would deem the version that the overwhelming majority take to be the distorted version I have no idea.

Unless you're a vulture, of course.

[World's End Stella]

You are telling us that Islam does not encourage the slaughter of the kuffir? You are telling us that monty has made this up?

Do you think we ought to reprt him or something? He must be mental to think such a thing.

No, I did not tell you that.

The Kuran certainly does have passages which encourage this sort of behavior. It also has a great many passages that make it clear that this sort of behavior is unacceptable and contrary to Islam.

The nutters decide to follow the former, the overwhelming majority of Muslims the latter.

[Sir C]

No, I did not tell you that.

The Kuran certainly does have passages which encourage this sort of behavior. It also has a great many passages that make it clear that this sort of behavior is unacceptable and contrary to Islam.

The nutters decide to follow the former, the overwhelming majority of Muslims the latter.

Oh, they're 'nutters', are they? History of mental illness, that sort of thing? Norwegian loner, hmm?

[World's End Stella]

Oh, they're 'nutters', are they? History of mental illness, that sort of thing? Norwegian loner, hmm?

Possibly a great many of them are, especially the foot soldiers.

But not all of them, of course. I could use a term other than nutter if you like? the disaffected? The social outcasts? The psychotic?

Anyone who blows himself up in a theatre amongst teen age girls and their parents clearly has something very wrong with them.

[Sir C]

Possibly a great many of them are, especially the foot soldiers.

But not all of them, of course. I could use a term other than nutter if you like? the disaffected? The social outcasts? The psychotic?

Anyone who blows himself up in a theatre amongst teen age girls and their parents clearly has something very wrong with them.

Yes. Clearly something wrong with them, like following a savage, barbaric medieval religion which appears to be growing in strength and even at a state level revels in this sort of enlightened behaviour.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/world-south-asia-40016266/gay-couple-publicly-caned-under-indonesian-region-s-sharia-law

[Monty92]

Possibly a great many of them are, especially the foot soldiers.

But not all of them, of course. I could use a term other than nutter if you like? the disaffected? The social outcasts? The psychotic?

Anyone who blows himself up in a theatre amongst teen age girls and their parents clearly has something very wrong with them.

The disaffected? The social outcasts? Most of the 9/11 hijackers had PhDs!! Many Islamic terrorists are western educated and have all the opportunities and privileges one could hope for in life.

[Peter]

You're denying that there are endless verses in the Quran and its associated texts that explictely call Muslims to war with nonbelievers for the sake of Islamic rule?

Thankfully, the overwhelming majority of Muslims choose to uphold a sanitised, distorted version of Islam - otherwise we'd be in even bigger trouble.

Yet your previous message suggested that all muslims want to do this and any that don't are not proper muslims.

Going on to explain that the only true religion is found in the verbatim acceptance of original script is a very childish and rather idiotic attempt to disguise the fact that you wrote a deliberately inflammatory message- which is also rather childish.

Poor form....expect better.

[Monty92]

Possibly a great many of them are, especially the foot soldiers.

But not all of them, of course. I could use a term other than nutter if you like? the disaffected? The social outcasts? The psychotic?

Anyone who blows himself up in a theatre amongst teen age girls and their parents clearly has something very wrong with them.

But you say yourself that believing it is right to fight nonbelievers for the sake of Islamic rule is a credible reading of the Quran. We know this because you say the Quran "certainly does have passages which encourage this sort of behavior".

So why would you then say anyone who follows that interpretation "clearly has something very wrong with them"? It is their entirely credible (by your own admission) interpretation of a book containing what they believe is the immutable words of God.

[Peter]

Yes. Clearly something wrong with them, like following a savage, barbaric medieval religion which appears to be growing in strength and even at a state level revels in this sort of enlightened behaviour.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/world-south-asia-40016266/gay-couple-publicly-caned-under-indonesian-region-s-sharia-law

For one thing, it is far older than medieval. All religions have barbarism within them. There are horrific passages in the bible containing absurd and contradictory laws with appalling punishment. Unfortunately there are some in every religion that are drawn towards this historical interpretation to support what are very modern desires and conflicts.

For radical Islamic terrorst read KKK. Every religion has them....

[Monty92]

Yet your previous message suggested that all muslims want to do this and any that don't are not proper muslims.

Going on to explain that the only true religion is found in the verbatim acceptance of original script is a very childish and rather idiotic attempt to disguise the fact that you wrote a deliberately inflammatory message- which is also rather childish.

Poor form....expect better.

I did not in any sense suggest that all muslims want to do this. I said that to do so is the most logical, rational course of action for a practicing, dutiful Muslim. This is because the book that they believe is the immutable word of God impels them to do so. To not do so is simply inconsistent with what they otherwise claim.

[Peter]

But you say yourself that believing it is right to fight nonbelievers for the sake of Islamic rule is a credible reading of the Quran. We know this because you say the Quran "certainly does have passages which encourage this sort of behavior".

So why would you then say anyone who follows that interpretation "clearly has something very wrong with them"? It is their entirely credible (by your own admission) interpretation of a book containing what they believe is the immutable words of God.

Which is precisely what is wrong with them. Surrendering your will to an interpretation of an age old book that hardly anybody around you agrees with, and which demands from you actions that all but a psychopath would be appalled by, is not a rational, logical act. It is an act of desperation and stupidity.

Apart from anything else, how can blind faith ever be logical.

[Sir C]

For one thing, it is far older than medieval. All religions have barbarism within them. There are horrific passages in the bible containing absurd and contradictory laws with appalling punishment. Unfortunately there are some in every religion that are drawn towards this historical interpretation to support what are very modern desires and conflicts.

For radical Islamic terrorst read KKK. Every religion has them....

Yes, those KKK madmen planting bombs all over the shop... and don't get me started on those radicasl Buddhists mowing pedestrians down all over Europe, honestly.

Yes, every religion is just as dangerous as Islam. They're all the same. Yes.

[Peter]

I did not in any sense suggest that all muslims want to do this. I said that to do so is the most logical, rational course of action for a practicing, dutiful Muslim. This is because the book that they believe is the immutable word of God impels them to do so. To not do so is simply inconsistent with what they otherwise claim.

So all practicing, dutiful muslims want to do it, or certainly should want to? And any that don't are not dutiful muslims? Or just not being rational?

[Monty92]

For one thing, it is far older than medieval. All religions have barbarism within them. There are horrific passages in the bible containing absurd and contradictory laws with appalling punishment. Unfortunately there are some in every religion that are drawn towards this historical interpretation to support what are very modern desires and conflicts.

For radical Islamic terrorst read KKK. Every religion has them....

Yes, and if Christian or Jewish fundamentalism currently existed on anything like the same scale as Islamic fundamentalism, I (and I am sure Charlie too) would be condemning it in equally strong terms.

Andreas Breavik, Dylann Roof....these people are as worthy of our contempt as any muslim extremist and no-one worth listening to would ever claim otherwise.

[redgunamo]

Apart from anything else, how can blind faith ever be logical.

I suppose it can be, but it doesn't have to be. Exhibit A: Arsene Wenger.

[Peter]

Yes, those KKK madmen planting bombs all over the shop... and don't get me started on those radicasl Buddhists mowing pedestrians down all over Europe, honestly.

Yes, every religion is just as dangerous as Islam. They're all the same. Yes.

I didn't say they were. My point was that if you want to blame the religion for the acts of people who hide behind it, based on the fact that it does say some awful things, then you could level the same claim against other religions.

I don't blame the religion.

[Monty92]

Which is precisely what is wrong with them. Surrendering your will to an interpretation of an age old book that hardly anybody around you agrees with, and which demands from you actions that all but a psychopath would be appalled by, is not a rational, logical act. It is an act of desperation and stupidity.

Apart from anything else, how can blind faith ever be logical.

If you believe what they believe, their actions are utterly logical. In the same way that a person caught in the grips of a psychotic episode, convinced they are hearing voices compelling them to murder, would also be acting logically.

[Peter]

Yes, and if Christian or Jewish fundamentalism currently existed on anything like the same scale as Islamic fundamentalism, I (and I am sure Charlie too) would be condemning it in equally strong terms.

Andreas Breavik, Dylann Roof....these people are as worthy of our contempt as any muslim extremist and no-one worth listening to would ever claim otherwise.

But would you suggest that all dutiful Christians in their right mind would act the same?

[Sir C]

I didn't say they were. My point was that if you want to blame the religion for the acts of people who hide behind it, based on the fact that it does say some awful things, then you could level the same claim against other religions.

I don't blame the religion.

I don't blame the religion, I blame the people. I blame the people who commit these acts, the people who help them plan it, and the people amongst whom they live, who tacitly or overtly support these actions. They just happen to be connected and inspired by the religion.

[Monty92]

So all practicing, dutiful muslims want to do it, or certainly should want to? And any that don't are not dutiful muslims? Or just not being rational?

Yes they should want to do it, if they believe the Quran contains the immutable word of Allah, which they almost universally claim it does.

[SWv2]

I suppose it can be, but it doesn't have to be. Exhibit A: Arsene Wenger.

Testify Red.

[Peter]

If you believe what they believe, their actions are utterly logical. In the same way that a person caught in the grips of a psychotic episode, convinced they are hearing voices compelling them to murder, would also be acting logically.

You think that is logical? A voice in your head telling you to do something?

I am not convinced that understand the term.

[Burney]

You think that is logical? A voice in your head telling you to do something?

I am not convinced that understand the term.

Logic can be impeccable, but still arrive at a completely erroneous conclusion if it embarks from a false premise.

[Monty92]

But would you suggest that all dutiful Christians in their right mind would act the same?

No, because there is nothing in their holy book that compels them to go to war with nonbelievers for the sake of Christian rule.

However, if you were to ask me whether the most rational, logical way for a practicing dutiful Christian to view homosexuality, is to believe it is sinful, then I would say yes.

[Monty92]

You think that is logical? A voice in your head telling you to do something?

I am not convinced that understand the term.

You're missing my point. To them, it is logical.

To tell a muslim that it is illogical to blow themselves up in a crowd of unbelievers is akin to telling a mad person in the grips of a psychotic episode that the voices in their head are not real and they should just go home, have a nice cup of tea and get an early night.

Except, thankfully, we don't need to do this with the overwhelming majority of muslims, because they have implicitly disavowed their faith.

[World's End Stella]

Yes. Clearly something wrong with them, like following a savage, barbaric medieval religion which appears to be growing in strength and even at a state level revels in this sort of enlightened behaviour.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/world-south-asia-40016266/gay-couple-publicly-caned-under-indonesian-region-s-sharia-law

This is an entirely different matter, and one that I expect we will have common ground on.

While I refuse to accept that people who blow themselves up in public are representative of our Muslim communities, the desire for the implementation of Sharia Law is far more common and without question needs to be challenged. We've been far too tolerant and your and Burney's endless railing against the left is perfectly appropriate when it comes to Sharia Law. It is a disgrace that we have even considered allowing any form of its implementation and making this clear to our Muslim communities should be part of any government's agenda.

But there is a great deal of distance between wanting Sharia Law and blowing yourself up in public.

[Peter]

Logic can be impeccable, but still arrive at a completely erroneous conclusion if it embarks from a false premise.

Very true. By the same token, doing as you are instructed to do is not a logical act. It can be an act of obedience, of self-preservation, of belief. By definition it is derived not by any logical process but by instruction. Be it religious doctrine or voices in your head.

[World's End Stella]

The disaffected? The social outcasts? Most of the 9/11 hijackers had PhDs!! Many Islamic terrorists are western educated and have all the opportunities and privileges one could hope for in life.

I'm calling you on the 9/11 PhDs comment. 19 hijackers, so 10 or more had PhDs from legitimate universities, did they? I'm calling you a liar and will apologise if you have any credible evidence that this is true.

I didn't say that all Islamists are disaffected or social outcasts, but I expect an awful lot of them are, certainly those who grew up in Britain. You'll note the number who were petty criminals prior to their 'conversion' to Islam.

[Burney]

This is an entirely different matter, and one that I expect we will have common ground on.

While I refuse to accept that people who blow themselves up in public are representative of our Muslim communities, the desire for the implementation of Sharia Law is far more common and without question needs to be challenged. We've been far too tolerant and your and Burney's endless railing against the left is perfectly appropriate when it comes to Sharia Law. It is a disgrace that we have even considered allowing any form of its implementation and making this clear to our Muslim communities should be part of any government's agenda.

But there is a great deal of distance between wanting Sharia Law and blowing yourself up in public.

Ah, but not as much distance as there should be. It's actually a relatively short step from 'The kuffar are accepting Sharia as dictated by the Prophet Mohammed (PBUH) in the Quran' to 'I must impose Sharia on the kuffar by my direct actions as required by the Quran'.

Once you start to tolerate the craziness, it's the thin end of the wedge.

[Peter]

You're missing my point. To them, it is logical.

To tell a muslim that it is illogical to blow themselves up in a crowd of unbelievers is akin to telling a mad person in the grips of a psychotic episode that the voices in their head are not real and they should just go home, have a nice cup of tea and get an early night.

Except, thankfully, we don't need to do this with the overwhelming majority of muslims, because they have implicitly disavowed their faith.

I'm not saying it is illogical because it is evil or mental. It is an act of faith or obedience, neither of which is arrived at through a logical thought process.

The religious nut does his duty because he believes he has been instructed to do so, not because he has weighed the pros cons and consequences of the act and believes it is the only logical course of action.

I get your point, its just the wrong word. And however you dress it up it remains an act of faith, however misguided.

[Peter]

I'm calling you on the 9/11 PhDs comment. 19 hijackers, so 10 or more had PhDs from legitimate universities, did they? I'm calling you a liar and will apologise if you have any credible evidence that this is true.

I didn't say that all Islamists are disaffected or social outcasts, but I expect an awful lot of them are, certainly those who grew up in Britain. You'll note the number who were petty criminals prior to their 'conversion' to Islam.

Now just hang on here.... what are we classing as a legitimate university?

[Monty92]

I'm not saying it is illogical because it is evil or mental. It is an act of faith or obedience, neither of which is arrived at through a logical thought process.

The religious nut does his duty because he believes he has been instructed to do so, not because he has weighed the pros cons and consequences of the act and believes it is the only logical course of action.

I get your point, its just the wrong word. And however you dress it up it remains an act of faith, however misguided.

I don't ever recall suggesting it was anything other than an act of faith.

Is it very much the concept of faith that I would blame for this sorry saga above and beyond anything else.

Faith is very silly, except where Arsene Wenger is concerned, natch.

[redgunamo]

Now just hang on here.... what are we classing as a legitimate university?

Don't start :-)

[Burney]

Very true. By the same token, doing as you are instructed to do is not a logical act. It can be an act of obedience, of self-preservation, of belief. By definition it is derived not by any logical process but by instruction. Be it religious doctrine or voices in your head.

Yes, but only if you look at it from a purely post-Enlightenment, rationalist standpoint in which religious belief is an optional extra rather than a given.

To medieval man, God was real. No ifs, no buts. His nature may occasionally have been disputed, but never His existence or His authority. There was therefore nothing irrational about belief in God or adherence to His strictures. The fact is that Islamic culture and society still very much exist in the medieval paradigm in this sense. Indeed, a desire to take the world back to a pre-medieval state is very much to be desired as far as the likes of ISIS are concerned.

[World's End Stella]

Ah, but not as much distance as there should be. It's actually a relatively short step from 'The kuffar are accepting Sharia as dictated by the Prophet Mohammed (PBUH) in the Quran' to 'I must impose Sharia on the kuffar by my direct actions as required by the Quran'.

Once you start to tolerate the craziness, it's the thin end of the wedge.

Yes, I agree with that. And I would extend it to head covering, not allowing women out in public without a male companion etc etc

If we win these battles, we will win the terrorism battle, eventually. The lack of political will to fight the small battles because of political correctness sickens me.

[World's End Stella]

Now just hang on here.... what are we classing as a legitimate university?

Something other than 'PhD in Islamic Studies from the Technical College of Islamabad'

Or East Anglia Polytechnic, for that matter.

[Peter]

I don't ever recall suggesting it was anything other than an act of faith.

Is it very much the concept of faith that I would blame for this sorry saga above and beyond anything else.

Faith is very silly, except where Arsene Wenger is concerned, natch.

Blind faith is a bit dangerous. Belief is fine.

The broader point here is that it is unfair to hold one religion to its original incarnation. It is no more the fault of Islam that a particular group uses it scripture to justify this stuff than it is the fault of Judas Priest that some **** decides to shoot themselves in the face.

Not that I am defending religion(s). They are all forms of mental illness.

[World's End Stella]

Blind faith is a bit dangerous. Belief is fine.

The broader point here is that it is unfair to hold one religion to its original incarnation. It is no more the fault of Islam that a particular group uses it scripture to justify this stuff than it is the fault of Judas Priest that some **** decides to shoot themselves in the face.

Not that I am defending religion(s). They are all forms of mental illness.

Gandhi and Einstein. Both mentally ill. Who knew? :shrug:

[Peter]

Yes, but only if you look at it from a purely post-Enlightenment, rationalist standpoint in which religious belief is an optional extra rather than a given.

To medieval man, God was real. No ifs, no buts. His nature may occasionally have been disputed, but never His existence or His authority. There was therefore nothing irrational about belief in God or adherence to His strictures. The fact is that Islamic culture and society still very much exist in the medieval paradigm in this sense. Indeed, a desire to take the world back to a pre-medieval state is very much to be desired as far as the likes of ISIS are concerned.

The logic doesn't extend beyond 'this is by definition true so I must do it'..... its not so much logical as mechanical.

[Burney]

Yes, I agree with that. And I would extend it to head covering, not allowing women out in public without a male companion etc etc

If we win these battles, we will win the terrorism battle, eventually. The lack of political will to fight the small battles because of political correctness sickens me.

But those small battles are used by the terrorists as recruitment tools for the big battles. The ban on the veil is often cited as a motivating factor in France is getting attacked. I'm afraid you can't just separate 'mainstream' and 'radical' Islam that easily. On the Venn diagram between the two, there is an alarming amount of intersection.

[Peter]

Gandhi and Einstein. Both mentally ill. Who knew? :shrug:

Einstein suffered acutely from poor mental health. Gandhi had to be bonkers, I mean look at how the bloke dressed.

[Peter]

Something other than 'PhD in Islamic Studies from the Technical College of Islamabad'

Or East Anglia Polytechnic, for that matter.

The Technical College of Islamabad is one of the most research-active scientific institutes in Asia.

East Anglia Polytechnic does not exist.

[World's End Stella]

The Technical College of Islamabad is one of the most research-active scientific institutes in Asia.

East Anglia Polytechnic does not exist.

Hardly surprising, I made them both up. :shrug:

Go on, Peter, tell us where you got your degree. We promise not to laugh.

Too much. :-)

[Sir C]

Gandhi and Einstein. Both mentally ill. Who knew? :shrug:

Gandhi was a fúcking idiot.

[Burney]

The logic doesn't extend beyond 'this is by definition true so I must do it'..... its not so much logical as mechanical.

Sure, but we all have articles of faith, don't we? For us it's pretty much a mechanical article of faith to say that democracy is good, free speech is good, women and gays should have the same rights as straight men and that there should be no racial discrimination.

We take those things as givens, but they are anything but in global and historical terms. They are, in fact, simply products of our time, our society and moral outlook. Equally, the belief that there is no god but Allah and Mohammed is his messenger is just as much a given to a billion or so muslims worldwide. We may see it as madness, but it's nothing of the sort. It's just a different belief system.

[Sir C]

Hardly surprising, I made them both up. :shrug:

Go on, Peter, tell us where you got your degree. We promise not to laugh.

Too much. :-)

Surely East Anglia Polytechnic is where Henry Wilt lectured?

[Burney]

Gandhi was a fúcking idiot.

True story. Nobody ever seems to mention that he was at least partially responsible for the horrors of partition.

[Luis Anaconda]

Now just hang on here.... what are we classing as a legitimate university?

Certainly not Cambridge I hope

[Sir C]

True story. Nobody ever seems to mention that he was at least partially responsible for the horrors of partition.

:nod: :****er: Him, not you.

[Ash]

Sure, but we all have articles of faith, don't we? For us it's pretty much a mechanical article of faith to say that democracy is good, free speech is good, women and gays should have the same rights as straight men and that there should be no racial discrimination.


What we should be doing to defend ourselves against being massacred in the streets is to start by defending those values imo.

[redgunamo]

Certainly not Cambridge I hope

Indeed ...

[Burney]

What we should be doing to defend ourselves against being massacred in the streets is to start by defending those values imo.

I agree entirely. All I'm saying is let's not get hung up on thinking that our core beliefs are objective truths while the other guy's are just delusional nonsense.

[Monty92]

I agree entirely. All I'm saying is let's not get hung up on thinking that our core beliefs are objective truths while the other guy's are just delusional nonsense.

They are objective truths in a scientific sense, since truth has an symbiotic relationship with science.

[World's End Stella]

They are objective truths in a scientific sense, since truth has an symbiotic relationship with science.

You mean there is always truth in science? Once science has confirmed something is true you know it to be so without any requirement for faith?

Blimey, there's my understanding of over 400 years of scientific investigation blown out the window.

[Monty92]

You mean there is always truth in science? Once science has confirmed something is true you know it to be so without any requirement for faith?

Blimey, there's my understanding of over 400 years of scientific investigation blown out the window.

Not quite. There are objective truths to be found in observable, empirical science. Things we know make life better for humans. Of course, science is always open to refutation (unlike religion, and particularly Islam).

[Burney]

They are objective truths in a scientific sense, since truth has an symbiotic relationship with science.

No. They are value judgments based on a particular set of mores. There is nothing objectively true about the statement 'A woman should be treated equally to a man' or 'You should not discriminate against homosexuals'. They are simply beliefs that we hold.

[Monty92]

No. They are value judgments based on a particular set of mores. There is nothing objectively true about the statement 'A woman should be treated equally to a man' or 'You should not discriminate against homosexuals'. They are simply beliefs that we hold.

I disagree. The reasons why a woman should be treated equally to a man can be found in science, or at least are supported by science.

[Sir C]

No. They are value judgments based on a particular set of mores. There is nothing objectively true about the statement 'A woman should be treated equally to a man' or 'You should not discriminate against homosexuals'. They are simply beliefs that we hold.

No one believes any of that shít really, though.

[Peter]

Hardly surprising, I made them both up. :shrug:

Go on, Peter, tell us where you got your degree. We promise not to laugh.

Too much. :-)

I got mine on ebay but that is thoroughly beside the point.

[World's End Stella]

Not quite. There are objective truths to be found in observable, empirical science. Things we know make life better for humans. Of course, science is always open to refutation (unlike religion, and particularly Islam).

Scientists have made errors in empirical, observable science as well, Monty. Ultimately, people with your belief set put the same amount of faith in the human mind that those who hold religious beliefs put in their chosen religion.

Despite the fact that there is overwhelming evidence of the limitations of the human mind. Remarkable really. Or, to put it another way, astonishingly arrogant and superficial.

[Burney]

I disagree. The reasons why a woman should be treated equally to a man can be found in science, or at least are supported by science.

No they're not. Scientifically, women are physically inferior to men, meaning they should be discriminated against in certain types of employment. They also have a tendency to get pregnant, which makes them a nightmare to employ. Instead, our anti-discrimination laws exist in spite of women's manifest and scientifically-demonstrable inferiority. That in fact makes them anti-scientific.

[World's End Stella]

I got mine on ebay but that is thoroughly beside the point.

So Open University then? Or do they do a poly nowadays as well? :-)

[Peter]

Sure, but we all have articles of faith, don't we? For us it's pretty much a mechanical article of faith to say that democracy is good, free speech is good, women and gays should have the same rights as straight men and that there should be no racial discrimination.

We take those things as givens, but they are anything but in global and historical terms. They are, in fact, simply products of our time, our society and moral outlook. Equally, the belief that there is no god but Allah and Mohammed is his messenger is just as much a given to a billion or so muslims worldwide. We may see it as madness, but it's nothing of the sort. It's just a different belief system.

I'm not saying it is madness. Just that it is not a position dictated or arrived at by a logical process. Having a cup of tea when you fancy one is entirely sensible. It is not logical.

Those articles of faith you mention are as much soundbites as anything. We mention free speech but you don't have to talk to people for long before you find out that an awful lot of people who profess to believe in it are quick to curb it where they identify a greater harm than its curtailment. It an ideal, a nicety, not a mission of blind faith or belief.

[Monty92]

No they're not. Scientifically, women are physically inferior to men, meaning they should be discriminated against in certain types of employment. They also have a tendency to get pregnant, which makes them a nightmare to employ. Instead, our anti-discrimination laws exist in spite of women's manifest and scientifically-demonstrable inferiority. That in fact makes them anti-scientific.

Oh, sorry, I should have qualified. Of course I think women should be discriminated against men in certain instances (and vice versa). I should have said that equality of opportunity - meritocracy - is the optimum system (albeit an imperfect one) for society to operate in a way that is beneficial to all humans.

[Peter]

Not quite. There are objective truths to be found in observable, empirical science. Things we know make life better for humans. Of course, science is always open to refutation (unlike religion, and particularly Islam).

If you define truth as the limits of human experience and knowledge observed through controlled experiment. Most people define that as science. Truth is something rather more elusive. Science is constructed to answer a question but never forget that somebody asked that question in the first place.

Remember, there was a time when we believed it was a universal truth that three at the back didn't work.

[Monty92]

Scientists have made errors in empirical, observable science as well, Monty. Ultimately, people with your belief set put the same amount of faith in the human mind that those who hold religious beliefs put in their chosen religion.

Despite the fact that there is overwhelming evidence of the limitations of the human mind. Remarkable really. Or, to put it another way, astonishingly arrogant and superficial.

I put no more faith in the human mind than you do when you have an x-ray and get told that that headache you've been experiencing is not in fact a brain tumur. The reason you breath a massive sigh of relief and walk home with a skip in your step is because you put the same amount of faith in the human mind that those who hold religious beliefs put in their chosen religion.

[Peter]

So Open University then? Or do they do a poly nowadays as well? :-)

There are no polys. The phrase you are looking for is 'post-92'.

[redgunamo]

If you define truth as the limits of human experience and knowledge observed through controlled experiment. Most people define that as science. Truth is something rather more elusive. Science is constructed to answer a question but never forget that somebody asked that question in the first place.

Remember, there was a time when we believed it was a universal truth that three at the back didn't work.

No, not us. Not Arsenal supporters surely?

[Peter]

I put no more faith in the human mind than you do when you have an x-ray and get told that that headache you've been experiencing is not in fact a brain tumur. The reason you breath a massive sigh of relief and walk home with a skip in your step is because you put the same amount of faith in the human mind that those who hold religious beliefs put in their chosen religion.

Not to mention a degree of faith in the NHS, a true test for the professed believer.

[Burney]

Oh, sorry, I should have qualified. Of course I think women should be discriminated against men in certain instances (and vice versa). I should have said that equality of opportunity - meritocracy - is the optimum system for society to operate in a way that is beneficial to all humans.

But billions of people worldwide don't agree, m. :shrug:

Don't get me wrong, I agree with you. I believe that our system is the best and most beneficent that mankind has ever come up with. However, all I'm trying to get across is that it is as much based in our faith in a set of ideas and beliefs as is the Islamic model.

So you and I can point to all the achievements of western liberal civilisation until we're blue in the face as evidence of our superiority, but there are many who look at our society and find it corrupt, decadent and disgusting and would prefer one that fits their belief system. They believe the world is better when women know their place, when people don't drink and when homosexuals and adulterous wives are killed.

[World's End Stella]

I put no more faith in the human mind than you do when you have an x-ray and get told that that headache you've been experiencing is not in fact a brain tumur. The reason you breath a massive sigh of relief and walk home with a skip in your step is because you put the same amount of faith in the human mind that those who hold religious beliefs put in their chosen religion.

I've never said otherwise. The difference between us is that I don't consider people who place their faith in religion to be anymore or less stupid, deranged or mentally ill than those who don't. It is that, that is arrogant and superficial.

[World's End Stella]

There are no polys. The phrase you are looking for is 'post-92'.

Sure there are, they just call them really sh1t universities nowadays, thanks to the genius of Labour and Tony Blair.

[Monty92]

I've never said otherwise. The difference between us is that I don't consider people who place their faith in religion to be anymore or less stupid, deranged or mentally ill than those who don't. It is that, that is arrogant and superficial.

But we can, objectively, be far more certain that the Quran was written by a common-or-garden terrestrial being than that it was written by a bloke who flew to the moon on a horse.

Therefore, even if you consider they both derive from faith, it follows that we rightly consider those who believe the latter to be more stupid than those who believe the former. Because of the levels of probability at play.

[Peter]

Sure there are, they just call them really sh1t universities nowadays, thanks to the genius of Labour and Tony Blair.

Nice try, but the term post 92 is not an accident. All polytechnics became universities under John Major. Nothing to do with Mr Blair or the Labour Party.

[Monty92]

But billions of people worldwide don't agree, m. :shrug:

Don't get me wrong, I agree with you. I believe that our system is the best and most beneficent that mankind has ever come up with. However, all I'm trying to get across is that it is as much based in our faith in a set of ideas and beliefs as is the Islamic model.

So you and I can point to all the achievements of western liberal civilisation until we're blue in the face as evidence of our superiority, but there are many who look at our society and find it corrupt, decadent and disgusting and would prefer one that fits their belief system. They believe the world is better when women know their place, when people don't drink and when homosexuals and adulterous wives are killed.

I know all that. But my point is that it is only our position that is backed up by science. The only reason to dispute this is if you don't believe in science. Which is fine. But I know you do.

[Sir C]

Nice try, but the term post 92 is not an accident. All polytechnics became universities under John Major. Nothing to do with Mr Blair or the Labour Party.

Major was almost as bad a limp socialist as Cameron and, God help us, Comrade May.

I despair.

[Peter]

Major was almost as bad a limp socialist as Cameron and, God help us, Comrade May.

I despair.

Suffered through our own sense of snobbery and class, I'm afraid. The model of universities vs applied science universities works very well in Europe. Here the polys were simply viewed as poor relations of universities.

[World's End Stella]

Nice try, but the term post 92 is not an accident. All polytechnics became universities under John Major. Nothing to do with Mr Blair or the Labour Party.

Well, I'll admit that my modern English history is limited to post 95 when I arrived. And even that isn't very good.

But it was Blair that wanted to get the post secondary education numbers up to 50% wasn't it? And didn't he dumb down A levels and let pretty much every institution call themselves a university in order to do that?

[Peter]

I know all that. But my point is that it is only our position that is backed up by science. The only reason to dispute this is if you don't believe in science. Which is fine. But I know you do.

What scientific evidence proves that the world is a better place if people are allowed to drink?

The key word there is better. It clearly indicates a value judgement, at which point the true scientist retreats to his lab and leaves you to it.

[Peter]

Well, I'll admit that my modern English history is limited to post 95 when I arrived. And even that isn't very good.

But it was Blair that wanted to get the post secondary education numbers up to 50% wasn't it? And didn't he dumb down A levels and let pretty much every institution call themselves a university in order to do that?

Yes, yes and no, in that order. In fact it is the Tories again now opening the route to university status for the private sector.

[Monty92]

What scientific evidence proves that the world is a better place if people are allowed to drink?

The key word there is better. It clearly indicates a value judgement, at which point the true scientist retreats to his lab and leaves you to it.

Erm, you have't made the mistake of thinking I'm talking only about medical science, do you? The ideas I'm talking about span the entire scientific spectrum.

[World's End Stella]

Yes, yes and no, in that order. In fact it is the Tories again now opening the route to university status for the private sector.

So the next logical question is that if Blair dumbed down A levels to get another 35% of students into university (assuming the UK used to have 15% of students in university like most countries) without increasing the number of universities, where did he expect the 35% to go?

[Burney]

I know all that. But my point is that it is only our position that is backed up by science. The only reason to dispute this is if you don't believe in science. Which is fine. But I know you do.

No. There is no scientific basis to not enslaving black people or sending 6 year-olds down mines or up chimneys. Indeed, there were excellent livings to be made at it as I understand. They are things we chose to stop doing based on a set of ideas. Science had fùck all to do with it.

You are getting the fact that we have derived what we perceive to be happy outcomes (for us) from no longer doing these things mixed up with some sort of scientific proof of our cultural superiority, which is nonsense. The Romans used to enslave and kill millions and indulge in games that involved torture and bloodshed. Was the fact that they dominated the ancient world and were vastly technologically superior to their contemporaries therefore validate the extremely fùcked up nature of their society?

[redgunamo]

Suffered through our own sense of snobbery and class, I'm afraid. The model of universities vs applied science universities works very well in Europe. Here the polys were simply viewed as poor relations of universities.

You mean it came as a surprise to everyone that Britons are not, in fact, Europeans? My word.

Anyway, it doesn't work "very well in Europe". Far from it. And the only reason your sort says such things is because you know you speak French and German, for example, at least as poorly as anyone likely to be listening so you imagine you can get away with it. By precisely the same token, the French and the Germans will tell you the thing works "very well" in the United Kingdom.

[World's End Stella]

No. There is no scientific basis to not enslaving black people or sending 6 year-olds down mines or up chimneys. Indeed, there were excellent livings to be made at it as I understand. They are things we chose to stop doing based on a set of ideas. Science had fùck all to do with it.

You are getting the fact that we have derived what we perceive to be happy outcomes (for us) from no longer doing these things mixed up with some sort of scientific proof of our superiority, which is nonsense. The Romans used to enslave and kill millions and indulge in games that involved torture and bloodshed. Was the fact that they dominated the ancient world and were vastly technologically superior to their contemporaries therefore validate the extremely fùcked up nature of their society?

I'm pretty sure you could come up with a scientific basis for outlawing slavery and sending 6 year olds down the mines. Or at least I wouldn't write off the possibility.

I would imagine you would attempt to measure an individual's contribution to society with respect to the number of hours worked over the course of their lifetime, the contribution that they might make if given equal opportunities in society etc etc. You could then measure the life expectancy of the average person with and without slavery and child labour and a use a fairly basic probability theorem to determine the contributions the slaves and children would have made. This would be offset against the advantages of cheaper labour amongst other things.

No idea what the conclusion would be but I'm sure this could be measured scientifically.

[Peter]

So the next logical question is that if Blair dumbed down A levels to get another 35% of students into university (assuming the UK used to have 15% of students in university like most countries) without increasing the number of universities, where did he expect the 35% to go?

Aha! You are labouring under the old notion that only a certain number of students were qualified to go to university and that those universities could only cope with that number. Wildly untrue.

Entry requirements were never set at the level required to be able to do well on the course. They were set high to attract the best students to fill the limited number of places available because the government would only pay for so many. Thus free tuition actually worked as a middle class subsidy, all of us paying for the education of a small number of mostly middle class kids.

What Blair did was introduce a tuition fee at 3 grand. Immediately there were more places, lower entry requirements and plenty of space at our universities with hundreds of thousands of perfectly well qualified kids suddenly given an opportunity.

Paradise :)

[Monty92]

No. There is no scientific basis to not enslaving black people or sending 6 year-olds down mines or up chimneys. Indeed, there were excellent livings to be made at it as I understand. They are things we chose to stop doing based on a set of ideas. Science had fùck all to do with it.

You are getting the fact that we have derived what we perceive to be happy outcomes (for us) from no longer doing these things mixed up with some sort of scientific proof of our cultural superiority, which is nonsense. The Romans used to enslave and kill millions and indulge in games that involved torture and bloodshed. Was the fact that they dominated the ancient world and were vastly technologically superior to their contemporaries therefore validate the extremely fùcked up nature of their society?

No, my ideas are based on the good of the individual, not the collective. And however successful the Roman Empire, for its slaves and torture victims the system of the day was undeniably sub-optimal, from a scientific viewpoint or otherwise.

For individuals, the benefits of equality of opportunity and basic human rights for all can be objectively observed in, and verified by, science.

[Peter]

Erm, you have't made the mistake of thinking I'm talking only about medical science, do you? The ideas I'm talking about span the entire scientific spectrum.

I never mentioned medicine. My question is how scientific study can ever embrace the notion of a societal 'better'..... better in what sense/whose opinion/to what end?

[redgunamo]

I'm pretty sure you could come up with a scientific basis for outlawing slavery and sending 6 year olds down the mines. Or at least I wouldn't write off the possibility.

I would imagine you would attempt to measure an individual's contribution to society with respect to the number of hours worked over the course of their lifetime, the contribution that they might make if given equal opportunities in society etc etc. You could then measure the life expectancy of the average person with and without slavery and child labour and a use a fairly basic probability theorem to determine the contributions the slaves and children would have made. This would be offset against the advantages of cheaper labour amongst other things.

No idea what the conclusion would be but I'm sure this could be measured scientifically.

Such number-crunching isn't science though surely? The results and conclusions always depend upon who is paying for them.

[Ash]

Sure there are, they just call them really sh1t universities nowadays, thanks to the genius of Labour and Tony Blair.

So many things to respond to on this thread it's hard to know where to start. Except to say that our Rich went to one of the best universities in the world. :-|

[Burney]

I'm pretty sure you could come up with a scientific basis for outlawing slavery and sending 6 year olds down the mines. Or at least I wouldn't write off the possibility.

I would imagine you would attempt to measure an individual's contribution to society with respect to the number of hours worked over the course of their lifetime, the contribution that they might make if given equal opportunities in society etc etc. You could then measure the life expectancy of the average person with and without slavery and child labour and a use a fairly basic probability theorem to determine the contributions the slaves and children would have made. This would be offset against the advantages of cheaper labour amongst other things.

No idea what the conclusion would be but I'm sure this could be measured scientifically.

I've no doubt such a cost-benefit analysis could justify lots of horrid things.

[Peter]

No, my ideas are based on the good of the individual, not the collective. And however successful the Roman Empire, for its slaves and torture victims the system of the day was undeniably sub-optimal, from a scientific viewpoint or otherwise.

For individuals, the benefits of equality of opportunity and basic human rights for all can be objectively observed in, and verified by, science.

So why don't we try it?

[Monty92]

I never mentioned medicine. My question is how scientific study can ever embrace the notion of a societal 'better'..... better in what sense/whose opinion/to what end?

Sorry, let me just be sure I know exactly what's actually happening here. You are disputing the idea that drinking can be, and often is, beneficial to individuals and groups, and that these benefits can be scientifically measured?

My word. Ok, carry on?

[Ash]

Nice try, but the term post 92 is not an accident. All polytechnics became universities under John Major. Nothing to do with Mr Blair or the Labour Party.

Ooh, I say. That's what we used to call a :wallop:

[Monty92]

So why don't we try it?

It's a fair question

[redgunamo]

So many things to respond to on this thread it's hard to know where to start. Except to say that our Rich went to one of the best universities in the world. :-|

That's just good breeding though, innit. If your parents can at least be bothered to ensure you attend the better sort of institution, it suggests you may be of the right sort yourself.

Of course, that isn't going to work for everyone, but if it did, then what would be the point of it :shrug:

[Burney]

No, my ideas are based on the good of the individual, not the collective. And however successful the Roman Empire, for its slaves and torture victims the system of the day was undeniably sub-optimal, from a scientific viewpoint or otherwise.

For individuals, the benefits of equality of opportunity and basic human rights for all can be objectively observed in, and verified by, science.


Ah. 'The' individual. Where does he live, then? Is he the wealthy slave trader or the poor, abused slave? Because he can't be both.

To talk of 'the individual' is, by its nature, to talk of the collective since you are effectively taking an average of human happiness.

Also, you don't think our way of doing things has its victims? The child in the Cambodian sweatshop or the suicidal worker in the FoxConn tower might not agree. We've just moved the problem out of sight and thus largely out of mind. The benefit you derive is affordable consumer goods and for that you're happy to trade off the misery of someone thousands of miles away. So your equality of opportunity and basic human rights schtick is pretty blinkered and hypocritical. What's more, plenty of people outside our comfy little bubble can see it.

[Ash]

No they're not. Scientifically, women are physically inferior to men, meaning they should be discriminated against in certain types of employment. They also have a tendency to get pregnant, which makes them a nightmare to employ. Instead, our anti-discrimination laws exist in spite of women's manifest and scientifically-demonstrable inferiority. That in fact makes them anti-scientific.

There's an argument that womens' ability to bear children makes them biologically superior. Only relatively few men and a load of test tubes are needed for the male contribution in that respect.

I'm sure you don't tell your daughter that she's inferior. :shrug:

[World's End Stella]

Aha! You are labouring under the old notion that only a certain number of students were qualified to go to university and that those universities could only cope with that number. Wildly untrue.

Entry requirements were never set at the level required to be able to do well on the course. They were set high to attract the best students to fill the limited number of places available because the government would only pay for so many. Thus free tuition actually worked as a middle class subsidy, all of us paying for the education of a small number of mostly middle class kids.

What Blair did was introduce a tuition fee at 3 grand. Immediately there were more places, lower entry requirements and plenty of space at our universities with hundreds of thousands of perfectly well qualified kids suddenly given an opportunity.

Paradise :)

So if that was the magical solution that opened up university to all these students, why is it now 9 grand?

[Peter]

Sorry, let me just be sure I know exactly what's actually happening here. You are disputing the idea that drinking can be, and often is, beneficial to individuals and groups, and that these benefits can be scientifically measured?

My word. Ok, carry on?

No. I am saying that the notion that those benefits necessarily make the world better is a value judgement that any scientists would run away from. And god almighty, do you really need me to run you through some of the catastrophic side effects of drinking? From alcoholism, domestic violence and the social cost of binge drinking in every town centre every weekend to the sheer cost of policing, the number of date rapes linked to alcohol etc etc etc.....

Spend a Friday night in Newcastle and give me a ring at 3 in the morning. Lets see whether your hypothesis is still so unshakeable....

[redgunamo]

Also, you don't think our way of doing things has its victims? The child in the Cambodian sweat shop of the suicidal worker in the FoxConn tower might agree. We've just moved the problem out of sight and thus largely out of mind. The benefit you derive is affordable consumer goods and for that you're happy to trade off the misery of someone thousands of miles away. So your equality of opportunity and basic human rights schtick is pretty blinkered and hypocritical. What's more, plenty of people outside our comfy little bubble can see it.

The essence of globalisation, in fact.

[Burney]

There's an argument that womens' ability to bear children makes them biologically superior. Only relatively few men and a load of test tubes are needed for the male contribution in that respect.

I'm sure you don't tell your daughter that she's inferior. :shrug:

I don't judge my daughter scientifically, a.

All I'm pointing out is that m's 'our society's belief system is scientifically-based' line is a pile of horseshít.

[World's End Stella]

I've no doubt such a cost-benefit analysis could justify lots of horrid things.

That's deflection. The point is that Monty is actually correct in that you can find a scientific basis for pretty much everything if you look hard enough.

Although quite why that is relevant to anything I have now forgotten.

F*ck me, what was this thread about in the first place?

[Peter]

Ah. 'The' individual. Where does he live, then? Is he the wealthy slave trader or the poor, abused slave? Because he can't be both.

To talk of 'the individual' is, by its nature, to talk of the collective since you are effectively taking an average of human happiness.

Also, you don't think our way of doing things has its victims? The child in the Cambodian sweatshop or the suicidal worker in the FoxConn tower might not agree. We've just moved the problem out of sight and thus largely out of mind. The benefit you derive is affordable consumer goods and for that you're happy to trade off the misery of someone thousands of miles away. So your equality of opportunity and basic human rights schtick is pretty blinkered and hypocritical. What's more, plenty of people outside our comfy little bubble can see it.

I expected some odd exchanges today but Burney morphing into Jeremy Corbyn is definitely a surprise ;)

[redgunamo]

No. I am saying that the notion that those benefits necessarily make the world better is a value judgement that any scientists would run away from. And god almighty, do you really need me to run you through some of the catastrophic side effects of drinking? From alcoholism, domestic violence and the social cost of binge drinking in every town centre every weekend to the sheer cost of policing, the number of date rapes linked to alcohol etc etc etc.....

Spend a Friday night in Newcastle and give me a ring at 3 in the morning. Lets see whether your hypothesis is still so unshakeable....

It's not catastrophic. Drinking is an overall benefit. All the people you're talking about there are gainfully employed, paying taxes and so on. After all, boozing isn't free, and neither is policing and social working and whatnot.

[Peter]

So if that was the magical solution that opened up university to all these students, why is it now 9 grand?

Because loads of them started going, even some of the poor kids. The spoilt little ****s then started to demand good jobs when they left.

Seriously, it was the financial crisis. It wasn't a great move, and that was Labour (Brown, not Blair, before you start).

[Burney]

That's deflection. The point is that Monty is actually correct in that you can find a scientific basis for pretty much everything if you look hard enough.

Although quite why that is relevant to anything I have now forgotten.

F*ck me, what was this thread about in the first place?

It's not deflection. Such a purely utilitarian analysis would, for instance, almost certainly conclude that disabled children would be best off being euthanised. After all, they will only ever be a drain and never contribute. Do we do that? Of course not. Why? Because our belief system (which, whether m likes it or not, is still based on Judaeo-Christian lines) tells us that to do so would be abhorrent.

However, my only point is that, while I am intensely glad that that is how we do things, trying to claim the reasoning behind it is scientific is nonsense.

[Monty92]

Ah. 'The' individual. Where does he live, then? Is he the wealthy slave trader or the poor, abused slave? Because he can't be both.

To talk of 'the individual' is, by its nature, to talk of the collective since you are effectively taking an average of human happiness.

Also, you don't think our way of doing things has its victims? The child in the Cambodian sweat shop of the suicidal worker in the FoxConn tower might agree. We've just moved the problem out of sight and thus largely out of mind. The benefit you derive is affordable consumer goods and for that you're happy to trade off the misery of someone thousands of miles away. So your equality of opportunity and basic human rights schtick is pretty blinkered and hypocritical. What's more, plenty of people outside our comfy little bubble can see it.

I've very intentionally not mentioned democracy or capitalism in any of my posts, yet your post makes it sound as if these have formed the bedrock of my argument. Not sure why you'v brought them up at all, to be honest. Basically I don't believe anything you've insinuated that I do in your post above.

[redgunamo]

I expected some odd exchanges today but Burney morphing into Jeremy Corbyn is definitely a surprise ;)

Yes, I've had my eye on B for some time :-)

[Burney]

I expected some odd exchanges today but Burney morphing into Jeremy Corbyn is definitely a surprise ;)

Oh, you mistake me, p. I don't actually care about the child in the Cambodian sweatshop in any meaningful sense, I'm just aware that he/she exists and have sufficient empathy and awareness to realise that his/her existence rather undermines some of our more high-flown rhetoric.

[Monty92]

I expected some odd exchanges today but Burney morphing into Jeremy Corbyn is definitely a surprise ;)

It's the moral relativism that has shook me to the core :-(

[Viva Prat Vegas]

Drinking is an overall benefit.

Not to the alcoholic individual

[Luis Anaconda]

Not to the alcoholic individual

IAHYK vpv. Cheers

[Ash]

They are objective truths in a scientific sense, since truth has an symbiotic relationship with science.

They're not. They're value judgements derived from hundreds of years of western liberal thought since the enlightenment. Claiming a scientific basis for them is untrue but they are OUR values for OUR civiliation, and when a bunch of cvnts go around blowing us up in our own manor until we submit to their backward values we must defend OUR values if there is to be any 'unity' around which to unite.

That means driving a bus throught the contemporary fake-liberal values of multicultural bubbles, "you can't say that" restrictions on free speech, and accepting the oppression of millions of women in the name of cultural diversity.

(It would also help if the West stopped backing Sunni head-choppers against their secular opponents but that's another story.)

[World's End Stella]

It's not deflection. Such a purely utilitarian analysis would, for instance, almost certainly conclude that disabled children would be best off being euthanised. After all, they will only ever be a drain and never contribute. Do we do that? Of course not. Why? Because our belief system (which, whether m likes it or not, is still based on Judaeo-Christian lines) tells us that to do so would be abhorrent.

However, my only point is that, while I am intensely glad that that is how we do things, trying to claim the reasoning behind it is scientific is nonsense.

Believe it or not, I'm sure you could come up with a measurable approach to proving that society would be better off without euthanasia.

However I agree with your second point. The way society has evolved is largely organic, without any pre-thought whatsoever. The fact that so much of it is scientifically justifiable is because of the number of variations and iterations that have occurred over time. We may not have planned it, but we do eventually get things right, us humans.

[Burney]

I've very intentionally not mentioned democracy or capitalism in any of my posts, yet your post makes it sound as if it's the bedrock of my argument. Not sure why you'v brought them up at all, to be honest, because I don't believe anything you've said in your post.

I see no mention of democracy or capitalism in my post, to be honest. I merely speak about the power relationships that exist between different groups of people globally and the fact that our system relies to a huge extent on us shītting on other people in other societies the world over who may not feel their sum of human happiness is quite what it might be.

[Viva Prat Vegas]

IAHYK vpv. Cheers

:hehe:
Your absorption capacity and continuing ability to function on a coherent and undead level would baffle any scientist

[redgunamo]

IAHYK vpv. Cheers

Precisely. I was gonna say, you don't see Ananconda complaining, do you.

[Peter]

Oh, you mistake me, p. I don't actually care about the child in the Cambodian sweatshop in any meaningful sense, I'm just aware that he/she exists and have sufficient empathy and awareness to realise that his/her existence rather undermines some of our more high-flown rhetoric.

It was also your insistence that the individual doesn't exist. You have become the anti-Thatcher :)

[Burney]

It was also your insistence that the individual doesn't exist. You have become the anti-Thatcher :)

Oh, the individual exists absolutely! What doesn't exist is 'The Individual' as defined by a sort of global average. I reject the latter absolutely, since he absolutely doesn't exist.

[Monty92]

Gotta go now, suffice to say I believe human capacity for empathy, charity, and all the stuff that can trickle down to those less fortunate is scientifically rooted. But so are human traits such selfishness for ourselves and our own (e.g kin selection) which is (partly) why the world is so imperfect and unequal. But this imperfection and inequality does not any any way detract from the scientific basis behind my argument.



I see no mention of democracy or capitalism in my post, to be honest. I merely speak about the power relationships that exist between different groups of people globally and the fact that our system relies to a huge extent on us shītting on other people in other societies the world over who may not feel their sum of human happiness is quite what it might be.

[Luis Anaconda]

Precisely. I was gonna say, you don't see Ananconda complaining, do you.

You've clearly never spoken to me first thing on a Monday morning, r

[Luis Anaconda]

:hehe:
Your absorption capacity and continuing ability to function on a coherent and undead level would baffle any scientist
That's one of the nicest things anyone has ever said to me :)

[Ash]

That's just good breeding though, innit. If your parents can at least be bothered to ensure you attend the better sort of institution, it suggests you may be of the right sort yourself.

Of course, that isn't going to work for everyone, but if it did, then what would be the point of it :shrug:

You are saying that Rich is well-bred?

If we ignore that the balance of probability suggests from his posts that he is a semi-fictional character at least, we have a man who has shown academic excellence, and worked hard to achieve a prestigious position from a prestigious institution, and yet we'd be hard pressed to find many posters here who would claim that his contributions reveal much intelligence, insight, originality, wit or erudition.

Executive summary: academic achievements can be over-rated.

[Ash]

I'm pretty sure you could come up with a scientific basis for outlawing slavery and sending 6 year olds down the mines. Or at least I wouldn't write off the possibility.


Here's a scientific fact: Small children were useful down mines because they fitted better and required less food to reproduce their labour. See also: chimneys.

[redgunamo]

You are saying that Rich is well-bred?

If we ignore that the balance of probability suggests from his posts that he is a semi-fictional character at least, we have a man who has shown academic excellence, and worked hard to achieve a prestigious position from a prestigious institution, and yet we'd be hard pressed to find many posters here who would claim that his contributions reveal much intelligence, insight, originality, wit or erudition.

Executive summary: academic achievements can be over-rated.

That's just envy though, ain't it. Otherwise, why does everybody seem to want them?

To be fair, I believe they're over-rated too, which is why, imo, it is far better to be thrown out of the right school than it is to pass with flying colours from the wrong one.

[Luis Anaconda]

You are saying that Rich is well-bred?

If we ignore that the balance of probability suggests from his posts that he is a semi-fictional character at least, we have a man who has shown academic excellence, and worked hard to achieve a prestigious position from a prestigious institution, and yet we'd be hard pressed to find many posters here who would claim that his contributions reveal much intelligence, insight, originality, wit or erudition.

Executive summary: academic achievements can be over-rated.
To be fair to the boy, he does know his cricket though. Can't fake that

[redgunamo]

Here's a scientific fact: Small children were useful down mines because they fitted better and required less food to reproduce their labour. See also: chimneys.

Sort of like whippets? Cheaper to keep and feed and more manageable than greyhounds?

[Ash]

That's deflection. The point is that Monty is actually correct in that you can find a scientific basis for pretty much everything if you look hard enough.

Although quite why that is relevant to anything I have now forgotten.

F*ck me, what was this thread about in the first place?

This substantial detour came from comments that we should start to defend ourselves from Islamist terrorism by defending our social values, which implies a discussion of what those values are and why they are worth defending. This happened. wd AWIMB :thumbup:

[Ash]

Sort of like whippets? Cheaper to keep and feed and more manageable than greyhounds?

Possibly. In some coal mines the kids' job was to open and close doors to manage the ventilation. Can whippets be trained to do that? Not sure how well they could handle a chimbley brush though. Opposable thumbs are scientifically superior.

[Burney]

Possibly. In some coal mines the kids' job was to open and close doors to manage the ventilation. Can whippets be trained to do that? Not sure how well they could handle a chimbley brush though. Opposable thumbs are scientifically superior.

They also used to send them under the looms to pick out the bits of cotton that might clog them up. If they were slow or fell over, they would obviously be horribly mangled, which was unfortunate, but people need cloth at the end of the day.

[Ash]

They also used to send them under the looms to pick out the bits of cotton that might clog them up. If they were slow or fell over, they would obviously be horribly mangled, which was unfortunate, but people need cloth at the end of the day.

Right. You can't make a shirt without breaking a few children's fingers.

[redgunamo]

Right. You can't make a shirt without breaking a few children's fingers.

And people had loads of kids back then, of course. Now we know why, I suppose.