Any teaching from an early age that refuses to acknowledge the existence of any other form of thinking could probably reasonably be described as brain washing. It is not the teaching that is the issue, it is the explicit threats if one does not follow those teachings that is the problem.
But isn't that the point? Epicureanism denies the immortality of the soul, and teaches that vice and virtue will not be punished and rewarded in the next world. So your argument is that teaching any philosophy other than Epicureanism (i.e. one that claims that vice and virtue are punished and rewarded in the next world) is brainwashing, but also that teaching Epicureanism is brainwashing...
I expect Labour to underperform the poll, while UKIP will improve but not by enough.
In each case, your suggested odds correspond closely with Betfair's current prices. I agree with you any late shift is likely to be Lab->UKIP or Con->UKIP, so Mr Helmer might be worth a modest tickle.
I'm currently trading UKIP above and below the 4.5 line on Betfair
"it is the explicit threats if one does not follow those teachings that is the problem."
A little excitable today? I can't say that I was ever explicitly threatened by Christians when growing up, and I suspect I'm older than you. Chill out a little (and I promise that is not threatening in any way).
@DavidL - It's tricky isn't it? I think that the fundamental problem has been multiculturalism and the positive encouragement of the perpetuation of different cultures within the UK. Provided we have the infrastructure and jobs to cope I don't have a problem with immigration per se. What I have a problem with is people coming to this country but then still living and behaving as if they were still in the Punjab or east Africa.
I agree completely. I have absolutely no problems with diversity in culture, language or anything else; in fact, I would hate the opposite. But complete separation from British life while living in Britain is fundamentally wrong and harmful. And we should say this and also be unafraid to state that the way we operate is fundamentally better than the way they do things in countries and cultures that actively oppress/discriminate against people based on gender, sexuality, colour, caste etc. Schools should teach it, politicians and others should preach it. You can have diversity and a fundamental set of values that everyone abides by. Part of that, though, is accepting that people are different and that they may choose to dress differently. Once you start to second guess their motives, you run into a whole heap of trouble.
Their motives are pretty clear. They have been brainwashed from an early age into thinking a psychopathic supreme being will do nasty things to them unless they wear a burqa. Why else would they choose to view the world through a three-inch slot?
I'm reluctant to conclude that people who believe things that I don't agree with can only do so because they've been brainwashed.
What do you think causes it? Free will? You don't say...
Why don't you ask them?
They likely acquire their beliefs the way everyone else does, through a mixture of parental influence, societal influence, rational thought, and empiricism.
One doesn't need to be a Muslim to believe there are aspects of modern British life that are crude, coarse, and unpleasant, and to wish to have no part of them.
@DavidL - It's tricky isn't it? I think that the fundamental problem has been multiculturalism and the positive encouragement of the perpetuation of different cultures within the UK. Provided we have the infrastructure and jobs to cope I don't have a problem with immigration per se. What I have a problem with is people coming to this country but then still living and behaving as if they were still in the Punjab or east Africa.
I agree completely. I have absolutely no problems with diversity in culture, language or anything else; in fact, I would hate the opposite. But complete separation from British life while living in Britain is fundamentally wrong and harmful. And we should say this and also be unafraid to state that the way we operate is fundamentally better than the way they do things in countries and cultures that actively oppress/discriminate against people based on gender, sexuality, colour, caste etc. Schools should teach it, politicians and others should preach it. You can have diversity and a fundamental set of values that everyone abides by. Part of that, though, is accepting that people are different and that they may choose to dress differently. Once you start to second guess their motives, you run into a whole heap of trouble.
Their motives are pretty clear. They have been brainwashed from an early age into thinking a psychopathic supreme being will do nasty things to them unless they wear a burqa. Why else would they choose to view the world through a three-inch slot?
I'm reluctant to conclude that people who believe things that I don't agree with can only do so because they've been brainwashed.
People's religion is entirely an accident of their place and time of birth.
Who says Allah is any more or less real than Marduk or Ra ?
I can't say that I was ever explicitly threatened by Christians when growing up...
Having attended a Roman Catholic (De La Salle brotherhood) boarding school myself, CD13, I'd just like to say that you dodged a bullet there. Or, to be more precise in my case, a cane! Count your blessings (excuse the pun)
Sorry, have been busy last few days and weeks and months. Need a holiday!
Re: burqas, it's worth remembering that the religious underpinning for them is minimal at best. They were and are an explicitly *political* rejection of Western values.
The common usage dates back to Egypt in the late 19th century during the period of British "oversight". At the time they were mainly confirmed to a small group of desert tribes. The British soldiers had standing orders to remove the face covering from anyone wearing a burqa on the grounds that it was illiberal and oppressive to women. The result: they were adopted as a nationalist symbol that rejected British rule and Western values.
Upshot is that this isn't a question of liberal or illiberal. This is an attack on our basic values of everyone being able to participate in society on an equal footing. Don't want to ban them: fine. But make it a policy that to interact with public services you can't wear a burqa & create a safe harbour so any private company doesn't have to serve someone wearing a burqa if they don't want to.
Well, if you want to encourage Islamic radicals including terrorists that's a good way to go.
It's perhaps worth pondering that the key Western "value" which burqa-wearers "reject" is the preference for reason over tradition. I - and a few other older Peebies quite possibly including OGH - will remember (just) grandmothers who, whilst they didn't wear burqas, certainly organised their lives around their own cultural traditions and saw education as destructive of family values. It's only been fifty years or so since respectable Englishwomen left their homes bareheaded, after all.
That's why I wouldn't ban it - creates another silly excuse people will use. Just create a requriement for faces to be uncovered to deal with public services.
Congratulations Mr Wolfrun, and to all those that finished above me. All the rest, shape up.
Not many finished above Shadsy and of those that did I recognise only one of PB's regular punters. This is worrying.
Mind you, I didn't notice an entry from JackW. Surely his would have outshone all others if he could have been ARSEd.
Morning Conchita.
I don't enter the competitions so as to give other encouragement and of course it would be completely unfair for my ARSE to enter the fray.
That said, without entering the competition I did offer my numbers that would have placed me third - which is a shockingly poor performance and I promise to do better in 2019 !!
"People's religion is entirely an accident of their place and time of birth"
Yes. Though most religions and belief systems teach the same basic precepts, at least in their original form. The problem is that some people subvert the original message to further their own, or rulers aims. Early Islam was far more tolerant of other beliefs and science than the "Christianity" of the time was.
Mr. Palmer, the alternative to slaughterhouses is vegetarianism. That's like saying people who eat meat can't be concerned about whether it's free range of battery-farmed. There's also the issue not just of whether halal's cruel or not much different to normal slaughter, but that people deserve to know what they're buying.
People who eat meat splitting hairs over how the animal was slaughtered are a joke
You are eating animals that would rather be alive than dead. It isnt much different to the argument over different kinds of rape
Having attended a Roman Catholic (De La Salle brotherhood) boarding school myself, CD13, I'd just like to say that you dodged a bullet there. Or, to be more precise in my case, a cane! Count your blessings (excuse the pun)
Did they teach you that the pope of Rome was infallible, immune from censure by any earthly power, and possessed a plenitude of power in both temporal and spiritual matters, without limit of weight, number or measure? If not, you should have reported them to the Inquisition in Rome for heretical depravity. You might have even avoided the cane...
Osborne appointee Mark Carney will never raise interest rates in Q1 next year. He would prefer to raise it after the election. If the fundamentals change, i.e. house prices keep on rocketing upwards, the rise will take place in Q4 2014. It might even be Q3 2014.
Feck-moi! I agree with Sourby...!
A 0.25% rise in CY2014Q3 is the best, non-political, position the MPC can make: Small pain well before the election that helps restrain domestic demand whilst not influencing the GE in 2015. Add to which this could push English-Sterling over $1.80 and my bet with Pulpie gets interesting....
If religion was to be introduced from scratch today, it would be treated as a mental illness. Hearing voices, compulsion to wear outlandish costume (Yes I'm looking at you Arch Bishop), belief that a supreme being exists and has the ability to punish you forever for breaking some arbitrary code, would definitely bring you to the attention of health care professionals.
I got caned at school and it wasn't even a religious one, but I'll concede those nuns might put the wind up you. Teachers tended to be more authoritarian years ago.
Nowadays, you're looking at death by cucumber sandwiches and cups of tea. "The vicar was round yesterday, nailed my head to the coffee table."
"People's religion is entirely an accident of their place and time of birth"
Yes. Though most religions and belief systems teach the same basic precepts, at least in their original form. The problem is that some people subvert the original message to further their own, or rulers aims. Early Islam was far more tolerant of other beliefs and science than the "Christianity" of the time was.
It's not true to say that christianity was intolerant of science.
In a world created by God, the laws of nature are part of God's creation, and worthy of study.
Thanks. I don't usually bet though I like to keep track of odds. Isn't there a small arb here between the 4.7 UKIP lay on Betfair and the 4-1 bet (which in Betfair terms is a 5, I think?) on bwin? (https://sports.bwin.com/en/sports/search?query=newark )
A word of warning in rates for all the yellow box p0rn in here
The BCC upgraded its UK growth forecast to 3.1pc for 2014, from 2.8pc. The UK economy has not shown annual growth of more than 3pc since 2007. Robust growth means the BCC now expects the Bank of England to start raising rates in the first quarter of next year, two quarters earlier than previously forecast. It also upgraded its 2015 forecast to 2.7pc from 2.5pc.
Osborne appointee Mark Carney will never raise interest rates in Q1 next year. He would prefer to raise it after the election. If the fundamentals change, i.e. house prices keep on rocketing upwards, the rise will take place in Q4 2014. It might even be Q3 2014.
Interesting also to see consumer confidence at its highest since 2005. Will this feed through into voting intentions or has it already done so?
"GfK said that all five measures of consumer confidence increased this month, leading to an overall index score rise of three points to zero. Nick Moon, managing director of social research at GfK, said the most important development was “psychological” given that this is the first time since 2005 that the index has “left negative territory”.
The index is calculated by adding up increases in the personal finance situation, general economic situation, major purchase index and savings index. "
The opposite view is that man is the measure of all things, which to some may be a rational belief system, but does not stand up to close scrutiny either.
I can't really see how the way in which religions influence people's perceptions of the world from a very early age can be described as anything but brainwashing.
Might not the argument be that teaching children Epicureanism from an early age is also brainwashing?
I ask again, in a different way. What proportion of people would spend their lives living in restrictive religious garb were it not drummed into them from an early age that nasty things will happen to them did they not?
Now consider what proportion of people would seek food, sex and entertainment without similar prompts.
I suspect you would find rather more of the latter, than the former.
A word of warning in rates for all the yellow box p0rn in here
The BCC upgraded its UK growth forecast to 3.1pc for 2014, from 2.8pc. The UK economy has not shown annual growth of more than 3pc since 2007. Robust growth means the BCC now expects the Bank of England to start raising rates in the first quarter of next year, two quarters earlier than previously forecast. It also upgraded its 2015 forecast to 2.7pc from 2.5pc.
Osborne appointee Mark Carney will never raise interest rates in Q1 next year. He would prefer to raise it after the election. If the fundamentals change, i.e. house prices keep on rocketing upwards, the rise will take place in Q4 2014. It might even be Q3 2014.
Interesting also to see consumer confidence at its highest since 2005. Will this feed through into voting intentions or has it already done so?
"GfK said that all five measures of consumer confidence increased this month, leading to an overall index score rise of three points to zero. Nick Moon, managing director of social research at GfK, said the most important development was “psychological” given that this is the first time since 2005 that the index has “left negative territory”.
The index is calculated by adding up increases in the personal finance situation, general economic situation, major purchase index and savings index. "
How can you have booming consumer confidence in a cost of living crisis ?
"People's religion is entirely an accident of their place and time of birth"
Yes. Though most religions and belief systems teach the same basic precepts, at least in their original form. The problem is that some people subvert the original message to further their own, or rulers aims. Early Islam was far more tolerant of other beliefs and science than the "Christianity" of the time was.
It's not true to say that christianity was intolerant of science.
In a world created by God, the laws of nature are part of God's creation, and worthy of study.
Mr. Palmer, the alternative to slaughterhouses is vegetarianism. That's like saying people who eat meat can't be concerned about whether it's free range of battery-farmed. There's also the issue not just of whether halal's cruel or not much different to normal slaughter, but that people deserve to know what they're buying.
In addition, there's the generally held view that if you eat meat and animals have to be killed then they should be killed in a humane manner - one supported by BVS.
I really dislike the fact that hindquarters of all animals killed under kosher rules are passed unlabelled into the general food chain. I'm tempted to shift to pre-stunned halal just to avoid this.
Yes, I agree with the generally held view, as you'd expect, and labelling seems to me reasonable on general grounds. I'm just wary of those media that appear only concerned with halal practice at the moment of slaughter and evince no interest in other aspects of slaughterhouses, battery farming or any other aspect of animal welfare.
I find that obfuscation! We have red tractor marks, Free range and barn reared eggs and chickens, outdoor reared pork etc. etc. All clearly marked and the consumer has a choice. We currently haveNO choice about knowing if the animals we eat have been killed un-stunned. That is my only beef (pun intended) and don't particularly care about the religion involved.
@DavidL - It's tricky isn't it? I think that the fundamental problem has been multiculturalism and the positive encouragement of the perpetuation of different cultures within the UK. Provided we have the infrastructure and jobs to cope I don't have a problem with immigration per se. What I have a problem with is people coming to this country but then still living and behaving as if they were still in the Punjab or east Africa.
I agree completely. I have absolutely no problems with diversity in culture, language or anything else; in fact, I would hate the opposite. But complete separation from British life while living in Britain is fundamentally wrong and harmful. And we should say this and also be unafraid to state that the way we operate is fundamentally better than the way they do things in countries and cultures that actively oppress/discriminate against people based on gender, sexuality, colour, caste etc. Schools should teach it, politicians and others should preach it. You can have diversity and a fundamental set of values that everyone abides by. Part of that, though, is accepting that people are different and that they may choose to dress differently. Once you start to second guess their motives, you run into a whole heap of trouble.
Their motives are pretty clear. They have been brainwashed from an early age into thinking a psychopathic supreme being will do nasty things to them unless they wear a burqa. Why else would they choose to view the world through a three-inch slot?
I'm reluctant to conclude that people who believe things that I don't agree with can only do so because they've been brainwashed.
What do you think causes it? Free will? You don't say...
Why don't you ask them?
They likely acquire their beliefs the way everyone else does, through a mixture of parental influence, societal influence, rational thought, and empiricism.
One doesn't need to be a Muslim to believe there are aspects of modern British life that are crude, coarse, and unpleasant, and to wish to have no part of them.
I can't ask four billion devotees of religion why they are religious. I simply look at the evidence before my eyes, and make a reasoned hypothesis. Most people are religious because they are carefully taught to be so, from an early age, from the people they trust –their elders. By the time they are an adult, religion is normal.
Mr. Isam, really? You don't think people have a right to know?
I eat meat. I think the way an animal was reared, its nation of origin and the way it was killed should all be information the buyer can see.
I sometimes eat meat too.. if I think about it too much it freaks me out a bit to be honest.
Yes one could be called worse than the other.. maybe, but at the end of the day none is much consolation to the innocent animal who didnt want to die under any circumstance.
It gets my goat (!) when people who eat meat make a big deal out of not eating animals that has been killed a certain way. One of the few (possibly only) things I agree with Russell Brand on.
Apologies for the link. I really cant stand his delivery
A word of warning in rates for all the yellow box p0rn in here
The BCC upgraded its UK growth forecast to 3.1pc for 2014, from 2.8pc. The UK economy has not shown annual growth of more than 3pc since 2007. Robust growth means the BCC now expects the Bank of England to start raising rates in the first quarter of next year, two quarters earlier than previously forecast. It also upgraded its 2015 forecast to 2.7pc from 2.5pc.
Osborne appointee Mark Carney will never raise interest rates in Q1 next year. He would prefer to raise it after the election. If the fundamentals change, i.e. house prices keep on rocketing upwards, the rise will take place in Q4 2014. It might even be Q3 2014.
Interesting also to see consumer confidence at its highest since 2005. Will this feed through into voting intentions or has it already done so?
"GfK said that all five measures of consumer confidence increased this month, leading to an overall index score rise of three points to zero. Nick Moon, managing director of social research at GfK, said the most important development was “psychological” given that this is the first time since 2005 that the index has “left negative territory”.
The index is calculated by adding up increases in the personal finance situation, general economic situation, major purchase index and savings index. "
How can you have booming consumer confidence in a cost of living crisis ?
An arithmetical mean average over an economy as a whole can hide much more than it reveals.
@BobaFett "What proportion of people would spend their lives living in restrictive religious garb were it not drummed into them from an early age that nasty things will happen to them did they not? " Ask any business man sweating on a hot summers day in a suit and tie?
A word of warning in rates for all the yellow box p0rn in here
The BCC upgraded its UK growth forecast to 3.1pc for 2014, from 2.8pc. The UK economy has not shown annual growth of more than 3pc since 2007. Robust growth means the BCC now expects the Bank of England to start raising rates in the first quarter of next year, two quarters earlier than previously forecast. It also upgraded its 2015 forecast to 2.7pc from 2.5pc.
Osborne appointee Mark Carney will never raise interest rates in Q1 next year. He would prefer to raise it after the election. If the fundamentals change, i.e. house prices keep on rocketing upwards, the rise will take place in Q4 2014. It might even be Q3 2014.
Interesting also to see consumer confidence at its highest since 2005. Will this feed through into voting intentions or has it already done so?
"GfK said that all five measures of consumer confidence increased this month, leading to an overall index score rise of three points to zero. Nick Moon, managing director of social research at GfK, said the most important development was “psychological” given that this is the first time since 2005 that the index has “left negative territory”.
The index is calculated by adding up increases in the personal finance situation, general economic situation, major purchase index and savings index. "
How can you have booming consumer confidence in a cost of living crisis ?
An arithmetical mean average over an economy as a whole can hide much more than it reveals.
We are all to a greater or lesser extent influenced by or even prisoners of the culture and environment in which we grew up and under which we were educated. The more remote that we are or were from any other influence - the less is our experience of what is 'out there'.
All of the above is constrained also by the willingness of our minds to experience and consider other lifestyle options - to experience such we must be allowed sufficient degrees of freedom that are not harmful or threatening to our fellow human beings.
However, many people are unwilling to step outside their comfort zone and may be happy to stay inside it - even though they may be unhappy inside it - for fear of experiencing - to them - the unknown. Witness the people who go outside the UK on holiday and expect to find all-day British breakfast, British beer on tap etc - such people are so unwilling to undergo new experiences, that their hosts have adapted their own very local market culture to meet the visitor's expectations.
So, in general, those who do become exposed to differing cultures, often have a more balanced viewpoint on life whilst at the same time take a reasonable view (there's a legal minefield) on the degrees of freedom that should be open to each individual but also treasures the differing cultures that are met and does not want a global monoculture (e.g. a Macdonalds and coke on every corner).
Trouble usually arises when a guest culture does not integrate with a host culture and wishes to impose/have special provisions for its own culture within the host country - e.g. Shariah law over UK law. Trouble also comes when the guest culture arrives quickly ad in large numbers so that it drive out of an area the host culture and does not integrate.
@DavidL - It's tricky isn't it? I think that the fundamental problem has been multiculturalism and the positive encouragement of the perpetuation of different cultures within the UK. Provided we have the infrastructure and jobs to cope I don't have a problem with immigration per se. What I have a problem with is people coming to this country but then still living and behaving as if they were still in the Punjab or east Africa.
I agree completely. I have absolutely no problems with diversity in culture, language or anything else; in fact, I would hate the opposite. But complete separation from British life while living in Britain is fundamentally wrong and harmful. And we should say this and also be unafraid to state that the way we operate is fundamentally better than the way they do things in countries and cultures that actively oppress/discriminate against people based on gender, sexuality, colour, caste etc. Schools should teach it, politicians and others should preach it. You can have diversity and a fundamental set of values that everyone abides by. Part of that, though, is accepting that people are different and that they may choose to dress differently. Once you start to second guess their motives, you run into a whole heap of trouble.
Their motives are pretty clear. They have been brainwashed from an early age into thinking a psychopathic supreme being will do nasty things to them unless they wear a burqa. Why else would they choose to view the world through a three-inch slot?
I'm reluctant to conclude that people who believe things that I don't agree with can only do so because they've been brainwashed.
What do you think causes it? Free will? You don't say...
Why don't you ask them?
They likely acquire their beliefs the way everyone else does, through a mixture of parental influence, societal influence, rational thought, and empiricism.
One doesn't need to be a Muslim to believe there are aspects of modern British life that are crude, coarse, and unpleasant, and to wish to have no part of them.
I can't ask four billion devotees of religion why they are religious. I simply look at the evidence before my eyes, and make a reasoned hypothesis. Most people are religious because they are carefully taught to be so, from an early age, from the people they trust –their elders. By the time they are an adult, religion is normal.
You could ask some of them. It really is the best way of finding out why people believe what they do.
It's a good deal more reliable than amateur psychology.
Mr. Isam, really? You don't think people have a right to know?
I eat meat. I think the way an animal was reared, its nation of origin and the way it was killed should all be information the buyer can see.
I sometimes eat meat too.. if I think about it too much it freaks me out a bit to be honest.
Yes one could be called worse than the other.. maybe, but at the end of the day none is much consolation to the innocent animal who didnt want to die under any circumstance.
It gets my goat (!) when people who eat meat make a big deal out of not eating animals that has been killed a certain way. One of the few (possibly only) things I agree with Russell Brand on.
Apologies for the link. I really cant stand his delivery
This is an argument raised many times, mainly by vegetarians. What is not recognised is that about 90% of all farm animals are raised specifically to be slaughtered and eaten. If we didn't eat meat, those animals wouldn't exist.
If you accept that it is OK to eat meat, then I think it is also reasonable, and responsible to care and be interested in how the animals were raised and slaughtered. The very successful campaign against battery farming has dramatically reduced these practices and the raising of crate fed veal is now banned (I think).
Thanks. I don't usually bet though I like to keep track of odds. Isn't there a small arb here between the 4.7 UKIP lay on Betfair and the 4-1 bet (which in Betfair terms is a 5, I think?) on bwin? (https://sports.bwin.com/en/sports/search?query=newark )
4.7 Betfair - Laying the £6 there is +5.7/-28.20 5.0 Bwin Backing 5.7 there is -5.7/+28.50
So yes there is a risk free profit of 30 pence there...
@BobaFett "What proportion of people would spend their lives living in restrictive religious garb were it not drummed into them from an early age that nasty things will happen to them did they not? " Ask any business man sweating on a hot summers day in a suit and tie?
Precisely the point, we have been trained that we will be financially punished if we do not conform with arbitrary rules on dress codes. You're starting to understand religion.
I can't ask four billion devotees of religion why they are religious. I simply look at the evidence before my eyes, and make a reasoned hypothesis. Most people are religious because they are carefully taught to be so, from an early age, from the people they trust –their elders. By the time they are an adult, religion is normal.
If Child-Benefits were a religion I have no doubts that you would claim it was religiously 'Your Rights' to practice it to the full. Belief systems are what they are: God does not pay me bennies to support him....
On Burqas/Nijabs... a ban would be shutting the stable door after the horse has bolted.. and possibly lead to terrorism from extremists looking for an excuse. I find them a bit creepy, as I would if I was sitting on a bus and Richard Tyndall got on with his balaclava on. I actually spoke to a woman wearing one a few years ago on the 100 bus in London. "How do your kids know its you when you pick them up from school etc?" "What if I said you had beautiful eyes?"
She seemed nice, if a bit shy
It was hard to tell really!
Its not good for a cohesive society to have a load of people walking about with their face covered. A nod or a smile from a stranger is one of the nice things in life, but when you allow mass immigration and dont make the feelings of the existing population the most important, this is what you get
Weather forecasters employed by the Canadian Meteorological Service have been banned from publicly discussing climate change. The decision has been justified on the basis that years of study of meteorology does not make a person qualified to discuss climatic events longer than a few months.
Weather forecasters employed by the Canadian Meteorological Service have been banned from publicly discussing climate change. The decision has been justified on the basis that years of study of meteorology does not make a person qualified to discuss climatic events longer than a few months.
That's an interesting bit of history. But I don't think your conclusion follows. If the story so far is, "We tried to force them to stop dressing in this way, and that just caused even more people to dress this way", isn't the obvious strategy to stop trying to force people to do dress particular ways?
The intention behind wearing the burqa in Egypt was to make a political statement: rejection of the British way of life. People should be absolutely free to do that if they want, but it takes some moxy to do that while living in the UK and participating in the benefits of the UK state.
Now I'm not a fan of banning things, so I wouldn't. But if individuals want to benefit from the state they need to engage on our terms: state funded education should promote our values (in a simple way - like non segregation of sexes in a co-ed school), there are questions of identification, etc.
Fundamentally, I really don't like the creation and perpetuation of parallel societies that multiculturalism has facilitated. Immigrants are welcome, but they need to buy into the concept of Britain, not just have their cake and eat it
Weather forecasters employed by the Canadian Meteorological Service have been banned from publicly discussing climate change. The decision has been justified on the basis that years of study of meteorology does not make a person qualified to discuss climatic events longer than a few months.
@saddened Having studied various religions for years, I have a reasonable understanding of them and why they found favour with the various societies, But I agree, a lot of what we deem to be "rational" and "normal" today is merely following on from an earlier convention.
Mr. Isam, really? You don't think people have a right to know?
I eat meat. I think the way an animal was reared, its nation of origin and the way it was killed should all be information the buyer can see.
I sometimes eat meat too.. if I think about it too much it freaks me out a bit to be honest.
Yes one could be called worse than the other.. maybe, but at the end of the day none is much consolation to the innocent animal who didnt want to die under any circumstance.
It gets my goat (!) when people who eat meat make a big deal out of not eating animals that has been killed a certain way. One of the few (possibly only) things I agree with Russell Brand on.
Apologies for the link. I really cant stand his delivery
This is an argument raised many times, mainly by vegetarians. What is not recognised is that about 90% of all farm animals are raised specifically to be slaughtered and eaten. If we didn't eat meat, those animals wouldn't exist.
If you accept that it is OK to eat meat, then I think it is also reasonable, and responsible to care and be interested in how the animals were raised and slaughtered. The very successful campaign against battery farming has dramatically reduced these practices and the raising of crate fed veal is now banned (I think).
Each to their own. I eat meat occasionally, and feel bad about it when I do. It wouldnt make me feel beter or worse knowing how it lived/died when it was alive.. a good thing about Halal labelling is that it reminds me that the meat was a living thing and puts me off eating it.
I am not comfortable with any of it, but dont lecture other people for eating meat. Im not saying Im right and theyre wrong, I just find it strange that the method of killing being an issue doesnt provoke thoughts about ethics and lead to less meat eating in general rather than attacks on halal
@DavidL - It's tricky isn't it? I think that the fundamental problem has been multiculturalism and the positive encouragement of the perpetuation of different cultures within the UK. Provided we have the infrastructure and jobs to cope I don't have a problem with immigration per se. What I have a problem with is people coming to this country but then still living and behaving as if they were still in the Punjab or east Africa.
y. Once you start to second guess their motives, you run into a whole heap of trouble.
Their motives are pretty clear. They have been brainwashed from an early age into thinking a psychopathic supreme being will do nasty things to them unless they wear a burqa. Why else would they choose to view the world through a three-inch slot?
I'm reluctant to conclude that people who believe things that I don't agree with can only do so because they've been brainwashed.
What do you think causes it? Free will? You don't say...
Why don't you ask them?
They likely acquire their beliefs the way everyone else does, through a mixture of parental influence, societal influence, rational thought, and empiricism.
One doesn't need to be a Muslim to believe there are aspects of modern British life that are crude, coarse, and unpleasant, and to wish to have no part of them.
I can't ask four billion devotees of religion why they are religious. I simply look at the evidence before my eyes, and make a reasoned hypothesis. Most people are religious because they are carefully taught to be so, from an early age, from the people they trust –their elders. By the time they are an adult, religion is normal.
You could ask some of them. It really is the best way of finding out why people believe what they do.
It's a good deal more reliable than amateur psychology.
Piss taking out of religious people, and sarcy name calling a la Gervais just show a lack of tolerance from the abuser, who is normally blissful unaware of how bigoted they sound
The competition results information shows how tribal most of us.The top %s of support for Con was most with Con supporters,the same with the rest.So,from a betting point of view,we tend to bet with our prejudices,a sure way to lose money.The only way to beat the leggers is to deal in numbers,not spectacles of varying political colours.
The competition results information shows how tribal most of us.The top %s of support for Con was most with Con supporters,the same with the rest.So,from a betting point of view,we tend to bet with our prejudices,a sure way to lose money.The only way to beat the leggers is to deal in numbers,not spectacles of varying political colours.
So how many of the top 19 listed are firm supporters of/members of one political party?
To start with, I have never been a member of a political party and have voted differently at more than one election.
Weather forecasters employed by the Canadian Meteorological Service have been banned from publicly discussing climate change. The decision has been justified on the basis that years of study of meteorology does not make a person qualified to discuss climatic events longer than a few months.
A word of warning in rates for all the yellow box p0rn in here
The BCC upgraded its UK growth forecast to 3.1pc for 2014, from 2.8pc. The UK economy has not shown annual growth of more than 3pc since 2007. Robust growth means the BCC now expects the Bank of England to start raising rates in the first quarter of next year, two quarters earlier than previously forecast. It also upgraded its 2015 forecast to 2.7pc from 2.5pc.
Osborne appointee Mark Carney will never raise interest rates in Q1 next year. He would prefer to raise it after the election. If the fundamentals change, i.e. house prices keep on rocketing upwards, the rise will take place in Q4 2014. It might even be Q3 2014.
Interesting also to see consumer confidence at its highest since 2005. Will this feed through into voting intentions or has it already done so?
"GfK said that all five measures of consumer confidence increased this month, leading to an overall index score rise of three points to zero. Nick Moon, managing director of social research at GfK, said the most important development was “psychological” given that this is the first time since 2005 that the index has “left negative territory”.
The index is calculated by adding up increases in the personal finance situation, general economic situation, major purchase index and savings index. "
How can you have booming consumer confidence in a cost of living crisis ?
An arithmetical mean average over an economy as a whole can hide much more than it reveals.
So the ColC is only for a minority ?
I don't know without looking at the details, but, for example, you could have a shallow cost of living crisis for a large majority, and a massive booming feel-good party for a minority, and the average might look pretty good.
Alternatively, things could now be better for most people than they were 12 months ago, but still a lot worse for most people than they were four years ago. Then it depends on whether you take an absolute or relative definition of a "cost of living crisis" and if a relative one what time horizon you use.
Polls have long suggested that most Britons consider him a bit “weird”; the greasy-spoon debacle speaks to a more damaging view, that Bagehot often hears, which is that they also consider him a loser. That way lies the political doom of a man who is, despite Labour’s recent poor showing in local and European elections, still the bookies’ favourite to be Britain’s next prime minister.
Clever puntahs now include [the current] Bagehot:
There is not much that he, a Europhile son of immigrants, can credibly promise on these issues. Yet the pressure to appeal to angry Labour voters, instead of inspiring a broader hope, will not dissipate. It is a painfully unwelcome distraction for an amiable but underwhelming prime-ministerial hopeful, with little time and an awful lot to do.
I can't really see how the way in which religions influence people's perceptions of the world from a very early age can be described as anything but brainwashing.
Might not the argument be that teaching children Epicureanism from an early age is also brainwashing?
I ask again, in a different way. What proportion of people would spend their lives living in restrictive religious garb were it not drummed into them from an early age that nasty things will happen to them did they not?
Now consider what proportion of people would seek food, sex and entertainment without similar prompts.
I suspect you would find rather more of the latter, than the former.
I think you misidentified the source of the nasty things.
Women wear burqas because they have it drummed into them that their male relatives will do nasty things to them if they don't. It may b done in the name of religion but that doesn't make it sacred behaviour.
Mr. Isam, really? You don't think people have a right to know?
I eat meat. I think the way an animal was reared, its nation of origin and the way it was killed should all be information the buyer can see.
I sometimes eat meat too.. if I think about it too much it freaks me out a bit to be honest.
Yes one could be called worse than the other.. maybe, but at the end of the day none is much consolation to the innocent animal who didnt want to die under any circumstance.
It gets my goat (!) when people who eat meat make a big deal out of not eating animals that has been killed a certain way. One of the few (possibly only) things I agree with Russell Brand on.
Apologies for the link. I really cant stand his delivery
This is an argument raised many times, mainly by vegetarians. What is not recognised is that about 90% of all farm animals are raised specifically to be slaughtered and eaten. If we didn't eat meat, those animals wouldn't exist.
If you accept that it is OK to eat meat, then I think it is also reasonable, and responsible to care and be interested in how the animals were raised and slaughtered. The very successful campaign against battery farming has dramatically reduced these practices and the raising of crate fed veal is now banned (I think).
Each to their own. I eat meat occasionally, and feel bad about it when I do. It wouldnt make me feel beter or worse knowing how it lived/died when it was alive.. a good thing about Halal labelling is that it reminds me that the meat was a living thing and puts me off eating it.
I am not comfortable with any of it, but dont lecture other people for eating meat. Im not saying Im right and theyre wrong, I just find it strange that the method of killing being an issue doesnt provoke thoughts about ethics and lead to less meat eating in general rather than attacks on halal
As my mother the redoubtable late LadyW noted :
"Vegetarians should be eaten and not heard."
Sadly one of our last traditional local butchers in nearby Redbourn retired last November and nobody took on the business. That said the local monthly farmers market does an excellent job of pushing the "W" household into penury .... only supplies from Scotland keeps the wolf from the door !!
The competition results information shows how tribal most of us.The top %s of support for Con was most with Con supporters,the same with the rest.So,from a betting point of view,we tend to bet with our prejudices,a sure way to lose money.The only way to beat the leggers is to deal in numbers,not spectacles of varying political colours.
I identified as Conservative for the competition, and voted for them in the Euros.
I'll probably vote for them at GE2015, I try and not let it affect my betting though - in fact I'm heavier Labour than Con for my GE position. Ed Miliband is a definite worry for me in terms of Labour bets...
I note you stuck in 30% Labour - did you really think Labour would get their vote out for the Euros to that degree. I thought 25.4% was bloody good, considering Labour's normal GOTV problems.
Weather forecasters employed by the Canadian Meteorological Service have been banned from publicly discussing climate change. The decision has been justified on the basis that years of study of meteorology does not make a person qualified to discuss climatic events longer than a few months.
Once again, I haven't insulted anyone. I have merely described, without euphemism or favour, one of the key motives to be religious – a fear of what is coming if one fails to comply.
So how many of the top 19 listed are firm supporters of/members of one political party?
To start with, I have never been a member of a political party and have voted differently at more than one election.
As a Tory, I was realistic and placed my party third in the Euros.
Not by much, mind. And if you ask me now for my feelings on May 2015, it would be Con most votes and most seats. That is the assessment of both heart and head....
I can't really see how the way in which religions influence people's perceptions of the world from a very early age can be described as anything but brainwashing.
Might not the argument be that teaching children Epicureanism from an early age is also brainwashing?
A better example would be feminism.
Congrats to Wulfrun_Phil and the others who got uncannily close on all six numbers. Worryingly, they include Shadsy!
Amen to that - mind you, it’s a sad day when bribery and corruption within the pages of PB.com. go challenged..!
No names, no pack drill, but the temptation of ‘Liquorice Allsorts’ is the first step on the slippery slope IMHO.
I started it the other night when I was discussing doing a thread encouraging Dave to make JohnO a peer.
I said PBers could add themselves to the list for £500 a pop (merely to cover the costs of running PB)
Dave, Dave, if you there - and I know you are - we did increase our majority last week. Just saying like. By the way, will you be at the Garden Party at Buck House next week?
The intention behind wearing the burqa in Egypt was to make a political statement: rejection of the British way of life. People should be absolutely free to do that if they want, but it takes some moxy to do that while living in the UK and participating in the benefits of the UK state.
It's worth saying that the thing these people rejecting at the time was an often-brutal colonial power taking their country by force. Obviously it's hard to disentangle from the culture the occupying power brought with it at the time, but I'm not sure you should equate this with the British way of life (whatever that means). I think most people reject some things that have been done in the country they live in in history, and dislike some parts of the societies they live in.
Now I'm not a fan of banning things, so I wouldn't. But if individuals want to benefit from the state they need to engage on our terms: state funded education should promote our values (in a simple way - like non segregation of sexes in a co-ed school), there are questions of identification, etc.
I don't disagree on state-funded education - I don't think there should be any religion in taxpayer-funded schools - but what you seemed to be advocating earlier was: 1) Denying access to government services, while presumably still requiring payment of taxes, unless people adhered to what you think is an appropriate British-culture-compliant dress code. 2) Suspending normal discrimination law to give people the ability to discriminate on grounds of dress where they wouldn't be allowed to discriminate against - say - someone dressed as a Nun. (*)
(*) I'm not actually convinced that these laws should be there in the first place, but if they are then I think they should be applied evenly.
These are both measures aimed at discriminating against particular cultural forms of dress in the hope of eliminating them. The history in your original post is a great example of how this will tend to be counter-productive.
I can't really see how the way in which religions influence people's perceptions of the world from a very early age can be described as anything but brainwashing.
Might not the argument be that teaching children Epicureanism from an early age is also brainwashing?
A better example would be feminism.
Congrats to Wulfrun_Phil and the others who got uncannily close on all six numbers. Worryingly, they include Shadsy!
If you'd entered with the Ladbrokes lines:
UKIP 27.5 Labour 27 Conservative 24 Green 8 Lib Dem 8 AIFE 1.5 (If I remember them correctly) then you'd have finished second.
Amen to that - mind you, it’s a sad day when bribery and corruption within the pages of PB.com. go challenged..!
No names, no pack drill, but the temptation of ‘Liquorice Allsorts’ is the first step on the slippery slope IMHO.
I started it the other night when I was discussing doing a thread encouraging Dave to make JohnO a peer.
I said PBers could add themselves to the list for £500 a pop (merely to cover the costs of running PB)
Dave, Dave, if you there - and I know you are - we did increase our majority last week. Just saying like. By the way, will you be at the Garden Party at Buck House next week?
Having attended a Roman Catholic (De La Salle brotherhood) boarding school myself, CD13, I'd just like to say that you dodged a bullet there. Or, to be more precise in my case, a cane! Count your blessings (excuse the pun)
Did they teach you that the pope of Rome was infallible, immune from censure by any earthly power, and possessed a plenitude of power in both temporal and spiritual matters, without limit of weight, number or measure? If not, you should have reported them to the Inquisition in Rome for heretical depravity. You might have even avoided the cane...
That's not fair. The Pope isn't always infallible. Just when he says he is.
Amen to that - mind you, it’s a sad day when bribery and corruption within the pages of PB.com. go challenged..!
No names, no pack drill, but the temptation of ‘Liquorice Allsorts’ is the first step on the slippery slope IMHO.
I started it the other night when I was discussing doing a thread encouraging Dave to make JohnO a peer.
I said PBers could add themselves to the list for £500 a pop (merely to cover the costs of running PB)
Dave, Dave, if you there - and I know you are - we did increase our majority last week. Just saying like. By the way, will you be at the Garden Party at Buck House next week?
I can't really see how the way in which religions influence people's perceptions of the world from a very early age can be described as anything but brainwashing.
Might not the argument be that teaching children Epicureanism from an early age is also brainwashing?
A better example would be feminism.
Congrats to Wulfrun_Phil and the others who got uncannily close on all six numbers. Worryingly, they include Shadsy!
If you'd entered with the Ladbrokes lines:
UKIP 27.5 Labour 27 Conservative 24 Green 8 Lib Dem 8 AIFE 1.5 (If I remember them correctly) then you'd have finished second.
That is indeed worrying. Those on here who believe that they know better than the bookies really ought to take that to heart and reflect.
" Steve Ballmer, the former Microsoft chief, has bought the Los Angeles Clippers basketball team for $2bn."
How in God's name can a basketball team be worth $2,000,000,000?
Because it generates cash flow from ticket sales and merchandises that, after accounting for costs, provides a net present value that is more than $2bn?
I can't really see how the way in which religions influence people's perceptions of the world from a very early age can be described as anything but brainwashing.
Might not the argument be that teaching children Epicureanism from an early age is also brainwashing?
A better example would be feminism.
Congrats to Wulfrun_Phil and the others who got uncannily close on all six numbers. Worryingly, they include Shadsy!
If you'd entered with the Ladbrokes lines:
UKIP 27.5 Labour 27 Conservative 24 Green 8 Lib Dem 8 AIFE 1.5 (If I remember them correctly) then you'd have finished second.
That is indeed worrying. Those on here who believe that they know better than the bookies really ought to take that to heart and reflect.
Stan James and Hills are far easier to make money off than Laddies.
Paddies sometimes gets it wrong, others right - somewhere in the middle.
@DavidL - It's tricky isn't it? I think that the fundamental problem has been multiculturalism and the positive encouragement of the perpetuation of different cultures within the UK. Provided we have the infrastructure and jobs to cope I don't have a problem with immigration per se. What I have a problem with is people coming to this country but then still living and behaving as if they were still in the Punjab or east Africa.
I agree completely. I have absolutely no problems with diversity in culture, language or anything else; in fact, I would hate the opposite. But complete separation from British life while living in Britain is fundamentally wrong and harmful. And we should say this and also be unafraid to state that the way we operate is fundamentally better than the way they do things in countries and cultures that actively oppress/discriminate against people based on gender, sexuality, colour, caste etc. Schools should teach it, politicians and others should preach it. You can have diversity and a fundamental set of values that everyone abides by. Part of that, though, is accepting that people are different and that they may choose to dress differently. Once you start to second guess their motives, you run into a whole heap of trouble.
Their motives are pretty clear. They have been brainwashed from an early age into thinking a psychopathic supreme being will do nasty things to them unless they wear a burqa. Why else would they choose to view the world through a three-inch slot?
I really dislike such blatantly and deliberately nasty representations of religion. I'm an atheist and find the concept of a god supremely unlikely and generally distasteful, but there is no way I would ever be that insulting about those that took a different view.
I am not sure what you can object to in BobaFett's description beyond the fact he has said it at all. What he has said is a completely accurate reflection of what both Islam and Christianity say:
"Follow our (often completely illogical and random) rules or suffer real pain in this life and eternal damnation and an eternity of horror in the next."
How that can be described as anything but psychopathic is beyond me.
It's worth bearing in mind that there are variations within both religions. Certainly more liberal groups like the Quakers wouldn't believe in damnation for not accepting their beliefs.
They didn't, however, have the minor candidates on the same screen as the major candidates - which is a bit weird given how they will appear on the ballot paper.
Also it looks as though they put UKIP at the top of the list - I'm assuming that the order on the data table is the same as the order the questions were presented on screen. [Is that right?]
I can't work out how they decided to put them in that order.
"It’s a common claim from Conservatives and political commentators that David Cameron’s personal ratings will deliver them victory in a year’s time. However a Survation poll for the Mail on Sunday at the weekend questions this assumption. The pollsters asked voters to explain which factors were most important to them in determining how they vote. They found that the individual leader was not the most important factor for most people.
When asked to rank the following factors in order of how much they affect which party people choose, the most important were:
The policies set out in the party’s manifesto 37% The quality of the party’s leader 17% The broader ethos of the party 17% The quality of my local MP 13% Preventing another party getting into power 10% The quality of the party’s potential ministers 7%"
Another future member of my harem, Miss Christina Hendricks.
Does your wife have to approve the list, in the traditional manner?
Yes, she approves of them all.
For full disclosure the list includes, Karen Gillan, Christina Hendricks, Emma Stone, Nicole Kidman, Kat Dennings, any members of Girls Aloud, Megan Fox and Scarlett Johansson, Rachel Riley, Sofía Vergara (also Benedict Cumberbatch and Tom Hiddleston are also on the list)
Well my entry was pretty rubbish. My greatest personal satisfaction from the Euro elections, however, came from winning on the "under" bet on An Independence From Europe by 0.01%.
They didn't, however, have the minor candidates on the same screen as the major candidates - which is a bit weird given how they will appear on the ballot paper.
Also it looks as though they put UKIP at the top of the list - I'm assuming that the order on the data table is the same as the order the questions were presented on screen. [Is that right?]
I can't work out how they decided to put them in that order.
The candidate order in the VI question was randomised.
(See under the 'Voting intention' heading on the opening page)
Once again, I haven't insulted anyone. I have merely described, without euphemism or favour, one of the key motives to be religious – a fear of what is coming if one fails to comply.
You think they will self-certify well? "Why are you religious?" "Um, because my mum told me to be."
It's an old trick to adopt an air of fair minded neutrality to rip it out of someone's beliefs while pretending you don't get where the offence is, and it's what you are doing.
Some people take solace in religion, some have other dogmas. If you're so great that you are above it all then well done, but try and be tolerant of things others find important however illogical you find it
That's an interesting bit of history. But I don't think your conclusion follows. If the story so far is, "We tried to force them to stop dressing in this way, and that just caused even more people to dress this way", isn't the obvious strategy to stop trying to force people to do dress particular ways? If people feel like they're being pushed around with symbolic cultural stuff they tend to react by doing more of it. Just let people wear want they want, don't bother trying to make dress codes for interacting with public services, apply whatever your normal discrimination laws are indiscriminately and stop trying to impose cultural stuff on them, since it's obviously counter-productive and given time the traditions tend to fade away anyhow.
It reminds me of the Japanese and whaling. It's a dying industry, barely hanging on with government subsidies, sending out boats a long way at great expense to catch meat that hardly anyone wants to eat any more. A bunch of western countries decided it was barbaric and tried to stop the Japanese doing it, the Japanese got upset at being pushed around and the government dug in with more support. If everyone could just say, "Fine, catch whatever you like, we don't care" then STFU about it for a decade or two then they'd stop.
That mentality sets in when people feel like they're being told what to do by outsiders. If Muslim Britons feel like other Britons having a view on burkas are imposing a view from the outside, then that just shows what a clusterf*ck integration in this country has been. In America, immigrants gaining citizenship must demonstrate in interviews that they are "attached to the principles of the Constitution of the United States, and well-disposed to the good order and happiness of the United States." We need to do the same here. If in the interview you don't clearly support Western values of free speech, equality of sexes and freedom of religion, then you should never be let in. Given opinion polls on these things, that should eliminate a lot of immigration from the religiously backwards part of the world.
Comments
"it is the explicit threats if one does not follow those teachings that is the problem."
A little excitable today? I can't say that I was ever explicitly threatened by Christians when growing up, and I suspect I'm older than you. Chill out a little (and I promise that is not threatening in any way).
Why don't you ask them?
They likely acquire their beliefs the way everyone else does, through a mixture of parental influence, societal influence, rational thought, and empiricism.
One doesn't need to be a Muslim to believe there are aspects of modern British life that are crude, coarse, and unpleasant, and to wish to have no part of them.
Who says Allah is any more or less real than Marduk or Ra ?
And you're entirely right. Only the Flying Spaghetti Monster is a true god. May you be touched by His Noodley Appendage.
I wonder how the call went. "Help, help, I'm being oppressed."
Those CoE vicars, Vicious bastards, the lot of them.
Count your blessings (excuse the pun)
I don't enter the competitions so as to give other encouragement and of course it would be completely unfair for my ARSE to enter the fray.
That said, without entering the competition I did offer my numbers that would have placed me third - which is a shockingly poor performance and I promise to do better in 2019 !!
"People's religion is entirely an accident of their place and time of birth"
Yes. Though most religions and belief systems teach the same basic precepts, at least in their original form. The problem is that some people subvert the original message to further their own, or rulers aims.
Early Islam was far more tolerant of other beliefs and science than the "Christianity" of the time was.
You are eating animals that would rather be alive than dead. It isnt much different to the argument over different kinds of rape
A 0.25% rise in CY2014Q3 is the best, non-political, position the MPC can make: Small pain well before the election that helps restrain domestic demand whilst not influencing the GE in 2015. Add to which this could push English-Sterling over $1.80 and my bet with Pulpie gets interesting....
I eat meat. I think the way an animal was reared, its nation of origin and the way it was killed should all be information the buyer can see.
I got caned at school and it wasn't even a religious one, but I'll concede those nuns might put the wind up you. Teachers tended to be more authoritarian years ago.
Nowadays, you're looking at death by cucumber sandwiches and cups of tea. "The vicar was round yesterday, nailed my head to the coffee table."
In a world created by God, the laws of nature are part of God's creation, and worthy of study.
http://jameshannam.com
"GfK said that all five measures of consumer confidence increased this month, leading to an overall index score rise of three points to zero. Nick Moon, managing director of social research at GfK, said the most important development was “psychological” given that this is the first time since 2005 that the index has “left negative territory”.
The index is calculated by adding up increases in the personal finance situation, general economic situation, major purchase index and savings index. "
The opposite view is that man is the measure of all things, which to some may be a rational belief system, but does not stand up to close scrutiny either.
Now consider what proportion of people would seek food, sex and entertainment without similar prompts.
I suspect you would find rather more of the latter, than the former.
@PopulusPolls: New Populus VI: Lab 35 (-1); Cons 34 (=); LD 9 (=); UKIP 14 (=); Oth 8 (=) Tables http://t.co/wikG6PuZfT
Yes one could be called worse than the other.. maybe, but at the end of the day none is much consolation to the innocent animal who didnt want to die under any circumstance.
It gets my goat (!) when people who eat meat make a big deal out of not eating animals that has been killed a certain way. One of the few (possibly only) things I agree with Russell Brand on.
Apologies for the link. I really cant stand his delivery
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sHqYKqqeHq4
"What proportion of people would spend their lives living in restrictive religious garb were it not drummed into them from an early age that nasty things will happen to them did they not? "
Ask any business man sweating on a hot summers day in a suit and tie?
All of the above is constrained also by the willingness of our minds to experience and consider other lifestyle options - to experience such we must be allowed sufficient degrees of freedom that are not harmful or threatening to our fellow human beings.
However, many people are unwilling to step outside their comfort zone and may be happy to stay inside it - even though they may be unhappy inside it - for fear of experiencing - to them - the unknown. Witness the people who go outside the UK on holiday and expect to find all-day British breakfast, British beer on tap etc - such people are so unwilling to undergo new experiences, that their hosts have adapted their own very local market culture to meet the visitor's expectations.
So, in general, those who do become exposed to differing cultures, often have a more balanced viewpoint on life whilst at the same time take a reasonable view (there's a legal minefield) on the degrees of freedom that should be open to each individual but also treasures the differing cultures that are met and does not want a global monoculture (e.g. a Macdonalds and coke on every corner).
Trouble usually arises when a guest culture does not integrate with a host culture and wishes to impose/have special provisions for its own culture within the host country - e.g. Shariah law over UK law. Trouble also comes when the guest culture arrives quickly ad in large numbers so that it drive out of an area the host culture and does not integrate.
It's a good deal more reliable than amateur psychology.
You did notice the "was"? If you didn't, I draw it to your attention.
" Islam was far more tolerant of "
This is an argument raised many times, mainly by vegetarians. What is not recognised is that about 90% of all farm animals are raised specifically to be slaughtered and eaten. If we didn't eat meat, those animals wouldn't exist.
If you accept that it is OK to eat meat, then I think it is also reasonable, and responsible to care and be interested in how the animals were raised and slaughtered. The very successful campaign against battery farming has dramatically reduced these practices and the raising of crate fed veal is now banned (I think).
5.0 Bwin Backing 5.7 there is -5.7/+28.50
So yes there is a risk free profit of 30 pence there...
:muppet-watch:
She seemed nice, if a bit shy
It was hard to tell really!
Its not good for a cohesive society to have a load of people walking about with their face covered. A nod or a smile from a stranger is one of the nice things in life, but when you allow mass immigration and dont make the feelings of the existing population the most important, this is what you get
Let's talk about another PB favourite topic
Weather forecasters employed by the Canadian Meteorological Service have been banned from publicly discussing climate change. The decision has been justified on the basis that years of study of meteorology does not make a person qualified to discuss climatic events longer than a few months.
http://www.iflscience.com/environment/canadian-weather-forecasters-forbidden-discussing-climate-change
That's an interesting bit of history. But I don't think your conclusion follows. If the story so far is, "We tried to force them to stop dressing in this way, and that just caused even more people to dress this way", isn't the obvious strategy to stop trying to force people to do dress particular ways?
The intention behind wearing the burqa in Egypt was to make a political statement: rejection of the British way of life. People should be absolutely free to do that if they want, but it takes some moxy to do that while living in the UK and participating in the benefits of the UK state.
Now I'm not a fan of banning things, so I wouldn't. But if individuals want to benefit from the state they need to engage on our terms: state funded education should promote our values (in a simple way - like non segregation of sexes in a co-ed school), there are questions of identification, etc.
Fundamentally, I really don't like the creation and perpetuation of parallel societies that multiculturalism has facilitated. Immigrants are welcome, but they need to buy into the concept of Britain, not just have their cake and eat it
Meteorologists, they were put on The Earth to make astrologers look good.
Having studied various religions for years, I have a reasonable understanding of them and why they found favour with the various societies,
But I agree, a lot of what we deem to be "rational" and "normal" today is merely following on from an earlier convention.
I am not comfortable with any of it, but dont lecture other people for eating meat. Im not saying Im right and theyre wrong, I just find it strange that the method of killing being an issue doesnt provoke thoughts about ethics and lead to less meat eating in general rather than attacks on halal
I demand that TSE changes his avatar!
It is almost impossible to throw meaningless insults towards the picture he is using.
CHEAT!
Amen to that - mind you, it’s a sad day when bribery and corruption within the pages of PB.com. go challenged..!
No names, no pack drill, but the temptation of ‘Liquorice Allsorts’ is the first step on the slippery slope IMHO.
Betfair
Most seats
Lab 1.93
Con 2.1
Maj
Lab 3.25
Con 3.9
Will we see crossover on either of these this year ?
I said PBers could add themselves to the list for £500 a pop (merely to cover the costs of running PB)
To start with, I have never been a member of a political party and have voted differently at more than one election.
Alternatively, things could now be better for most people than they were 12 months ago, but still a lot worse for most people than they were four years ago. Then it depends on whether you take an absolute or relative definition of a "cost of living crisis" and if a relative one what time horizon you use.
http://www.economist.com/news/britain/21603053-labour-partys-leader-and-favourite-win-next-election-has-had-rotten-few-weeks-eds Clever puntahs now include [the current] Bagehot:
Women wear burqas because they have it drummed into them that their male relatives will do nasty things to them if they don't. It may b done in the name of religion but that doesn't make it sacred behaviour.
"Vegetarians should be eaten and not heard."
Sadly one of our last traditional local butchers in nearby Redbourn retired last November and nobody took on the business. That said the local monthly farmers market does an excellent job of pushing the "W" household into penury .... only supplies from Scotland keeps the wolf from the door !!
Completely unacceptable tactic.
I'll probably vote for them at GE2015, I try and not let it affect my betting though - in fact I'm heavier Labour than Con for my GE position. Ed Miliband is a definite worry for me in terms of Labour bets...
I note you stuck in 30% Labour - did you really think Labour would get their vote out for the Euros to that degree. I thought 25.4% was bloody good, considering Labour's normal GOTV problems.
Once again, I haven't insulted anyone. I have merely described, without euphemism or favour, one of the key motives to be religious – a fear of what is coming if one fails to comply.
@Sean
You think they will self-certify well?
"Why are you religious?"
"Um, because my mum told me to be."
Overall Majority ?
Conservatives a lay at 3.9 though I have enough red on that position as it is at the moment.
Not by much, mind. And if you ask me now for my feelings on May 2015, it would be Con most votes and most seats. That is the assessment of both heart and head....
http://survation.com/newark-by-election-poll-survation-the-sun/
Congrats to Wulfrun_Phil and the others who got uncannily close on all six numbers. Worryingly, they include Shadsy!
Also I'm not too sure OGH wants his own "Cash for Peerages" scandal. However with your own footwear fetish you could make it a :
Cash for peerages sandal ...... How could LibDems resist !!
I've changed my pic.
Just for you two.
Miss Stone is another future member of my harem
1) Denying access to government services, while presumably still requiring payment of taxes, unless people adhered to what you think is an appropriate British-culture-compliant dress code.
2) Suspending normal discrimination law to give people the ability to discriminate on grounds of dress where they wouldn't be allowed to discriminate against - say - someone dressed as a Nun. (*)
(*) I'm not actually convinced that these laws should be there in the first place, but if they are then I think they should be applied evenly.
These are both measures aimed at discriminating against particular cultural forms of dress in the hope of eliminating them. The history in your original post is a great example of how this will tend to be counter-productive.
http://survation.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/Newark-Poll-Sun-Tables.pdf
How are we supposed to rampantly insult you, mock your footwear, deride your love of electoral reform threads and dismiss you as a PB Tory now?
@MikeSmithson – ban him.
UKIP 27.5 Labour 27 Conservative 24 Green 8 Lib Dem 8 AIFE 1.5 (If I remember them correctly) then you'd have finished second.
Another future member of my harem, Miss Christina Hendricks.
Paddies sometimes gets it wrong, others right - somewhere in the middle.
Also it looks as though they put UKIP at the top of the list - I'm assuming that the order on the data table is the same as the order the questions were presented on screen. [Is that right?]
I can't work out how they decided to put them in that order.
When asked to rank the following factors in order of how much they affect which party people choose, the most important were:
The policies set out in the party’s manifesto 37%
The quality of the party’s leader 17%
The broader ethos of the party 17%
The quality of my local MP 13%
Preventing another party getting into power 10%
The quality of the party’s potential ministers 7%"
http://labourlist.org/2014/05/new-poll-shows-its-a-partys-policies-and-ethos-that-matter-most/
For full disclosure the list includes, Karen Gillan, Christina Hendricks, Emma Stone, Nicole Kidman, Kat Dennings, any members of Girls Aloud, Megan Fox and Scarlett Johansson, Rachel Riley, Sofía Vergara (also Benedict Cumberbatch and Tom Hiddleston are also on the list)
Ahem.
The idea of a Harem is making the idea of an elected Dictator for Life quite appealing...
(See under the 'Voting intention' heading on the opening page)
Some people take solace in religion, some have other dogmas. If you're so great that you are above it all then well done, but try and be tolerant of things others find important however illogical you find it