Robsk II

Ah bon, avec camera, c'est une Jour magnifique pour le photographie. Et le francais merde.

Try not to be fed up, eh? It's sunny outside.

Well blow me. That's quite a post pancack. You really shouldn't get wound up; anger and whatever it is you are repressing to make your frustration explode into this kind of thing can cause all sorts of health issues.

Yes.

This is nothing new. Consider the supposed architect of the Reichstag fire, and the laws brought in afterwards.

Tony Benn, though no longer an MP. Also Neil Kinnock.

St Will

"Can't afford to lest on their raurels" haha

Yummy.

Haha, that was actually quite funny. What the hell?

What exactly were you in Spain for? Never managed to work that out.

If I did it, I'd fire half the team straight away. Just because.

That's some hairy **** right there.

Quite right on all points. First, I guess it's down to social education, in short, and council initiatives / guidelines failing to met with sensible interpretation. I'm pretty sure those people are just not fit to make those decisions, and perhaps this is a wider flaw. Not many people do get a real 'education' about issues like this, as it's an area of decision-making that's relatively new. Again, coupled with the fear councils have of offending (because they have an obligation to be representative, to consult, to celebrate equality and diversity, etc etc), this is a potent mix. Second - I agree. A problem with this is that common sense suggests it should be a common trait. I can't say I believe it is, partially because it can only be applied within the context of each individual. More individuals lack information to make decent sense of things than have enough (if you can ever have enough). Finally - yes, there is some truth in them, and it's a shame. yet there is also some truth in stories of crazy benefits payouts to people who shouldn't get them (immigrants, asylum seekers and native residents included) - but this does not, in my view, excuse the silly reactions peopole have and the fact that some base their wider views on very specific, isolated cases. Mistakes get made, and things do get reported in half truths at times, or to sell copty - but perspective is needed, and many seem not to understand this. That's when perception becomes probelmatic.

I've never once seen a parade of the PC brigade. Liberal use of such a stupid term cheapens any argument, in my opinion. It's a convenient label to create enemies that aren't there, and to avoid discussing any actual issues on the table whilst propogating a false self-image of 'the typical brit'. Of course banning these sorts of things are often silly, but they are the actions of individuals who don't understand what they are on about. It's an ignorant few pen-pushers with daft ideas and a lack of awareness about equality and diversity making mad decisions on weak bases scared in the face of a culture obsessed with scandal and litigation. I also have only honestly heard of a very, very few cases where things have actually been banned in as stupid a way as this, yet some would have us believe this happens all the time, nationwide. Simply not true. As GITR says, how many complaints do people actually get? Very few, I'd think, and half the time it's a half story. In cases of provocation, where symbolism is used to oppress other people (it can and does happen before anyone says otherwise), perhaps common sense has sometimes prevailed and the 'aggrieved' thugs have written to papers. I don't know. I do know, though, that this issue is grossly over-represented.

What is civilised, eh? It seems almost that a large proportion of the population need to be given a codified moral framework to be 'decent people'. I feel I'm basically a good person, but, while I know nurture and society play a part in shaping my ideas, I certainly feel I've developed my own values overall - and certainly would question some existing concepts within the society I live. This is where my views and some religious people differ, I think. The problem is that a whole load of secular of faux-secular people seem to be morally redundant, and maybe they need religion - or something like it - to be kept vaguely 'in check'. It's further complicated by moral codes that OK violence to others and so on, and the fact that many supposedly godly people are nasty idiots or bigots anyway. Dubai Phil raised a good point. Is our society really any better than any other? Is what we consider to be freedom (questionably, perhaps) actually better if many just vomit that away, or stop caring about how others are, stop investing in their cultures and communities? We supposedly value democracy, yet how many people really attempt to be truly informed or objective? Hardly any. How many people simply can't be bothered to involve themselves in the process, even if that's to combat the reasons for disillusionment in it? Too many. How many are happy to remain in ignorant bliss in their outmoded views of other people, or the suffering of others, or inconvenient facts that might shake up their own position? Too many. Maybe extremist clerics whip up naive young men to commit barbaric acts believing them to be right, but can our own preachers - the tabloids, television, etc - not also stir up great fervour in people without always being reasoned or even true? Look at the crazy reaction to some criminals over others. The ideas people have about immigration or race or class. How quickly people get to feeling righteous indignance at the crimes of others whilst colluding or failing to prevent crimes of our own. Our population is often just as suggestible, stupid or mad. The only thing that really differentiates us is the ready availability of information, so that more viewpoints are on offer. For such a great, liberal and free-thinking society, once again it's easy to conclude that we're not really so far away from the 'uncivilised'. We con ourselves and tell ourselves we are better, and sometimes we are, but so do others.

See? Strange to turn the tables on that thought. Nothing is ever proved, of course. Only disproved... So I believe my views have more validity than others, but so do they, as much or more.

Lor cumme!

Broadly in agreement. I guess the core thing is value systems. Religions and attitudes learnt by rota or proxy - in fact, any belief structure based around anything other than rationality and logic, and that doesn't exclude some of the values we hold - is hard to argue against. For example, how can you argue against a man who believes, strongly enough to die, that it is his role (and perhaps eternal prize afterwards) to kill others? Faith is inherently illogical. Belief without proof. If someone is willing to buy into anything of that mould, why do we believe rational discussion will dissuade them? The debate isn't about individuals. People can be called terrorists or insurgents, but no-one fights for things they don't believe in, even if they find other causes than the one their comrades die for. For some wars in the name of god, men have fought for honour, or families. Yet they still fight for something. As individuals, they really are no different. It is the cultures, the systems, the way of doing things, the way thinking is taught that shapes the world. And again, it's very difficult to argue. I believe my views are right, and I was criticised for this yesterday. Yet of course I do - otherwise why would I believe them? So I don't apologise, yet nor do Islamic fundamentalists, and we all like to hold ourselves so far removed from them because it's a convenient and comfortable place to be. And generally, I have my views strongly, because I think they are correct, and I think I have reasons to think these things. But what else is a belief? One man will tell you god exists, another will tell you he doesn't, and both consider themselves to be irrefutably correct. There is no easy way to reconcile these men in their differences, and if these are extreme, perhaps they will fight.

That's right. Most people on serious interweb threads are entirely without strong opinions, after all. Frankly, though, I would genuinely assume many posters on here are dicks anyway, and would not seek nor welcome their approval. Convenient.

Good point then, Einstein.

But voting others in without asking for a proper change won't guarantee change in thinking or actions. nob head.

Oh, I think you can.

Perhaps a bit uncalled for. At least it could subjectively have been called accurate.

It won't, though. That's the problem. Not unless people truly hold them accountable, but actually, we're all here rather than marching in the streets. Voting another party in - without saying 'this is why' - will not change the culture.