Hamilton Saint

Agreed. Total abomination.

I don't have a position on that. It's very complicated. It's almost impossible to know what's really happening there. But the place is a key geo-political area: all the major powers will be busy behind the scenes trying to influence the outcome in one direction or another. And the fate of the civilian population may not be uppermost in their considerations. For certain there are governments of all types surreptitiously arming different factions within the country. Undoubtedly, it's a brutal regime in power there, but how to ensure that the toppling of one despotic regime does not lead to the imposition of something just as bad - or a state of extended chaos? Look what happened in Iran, after the Shah was toppled. Look what happened in Iraq. It's a quandary. Military intervention seldom achieves the stated end, and often only makes things worse for the civilian population. I have no confidence in recommending any action there.

How much are 600,000 lives worth?

Perhaps the mellifluous malevolence of their vocal delivery? All that Shakespearean training!

You didn't read that bit where he said: "we would seem to be well outside the top 6"?

A fantastic album - a great leap forward, after an OK debut. Full of gems.

So, which is it? They are going to be banned - which is what the title of your thread says, and your first sentence says - or this is what feminist groups want. Make up your mind.

Could be a build up of ear wax that has hardened enough to put pressure on the inner ear. That can be relieved by putting drops of mineral oil in the ear - this will soften the wax and relieve the pressure. But you need to check this out with your doctor.

Precisely. And using "political correctness gone mad" as their prime rationale.

Silly comment. The soldier wasn't attacked because he was white - it wasn't a random, racist attack - he was attacked because he was a soldier. The killers made political comments and references to conflicts overseas. The evidence strongly suggests it was an act of terror. Nothing to do with racism.

I've made my point several times, in several ways. You don't seem to be willing to accept what I've said. No point in my repeating myself endlessly,eh?

As I mentioned in post #28, you're not familiar (I'm assuming) with the historical context of how offense has been given and received with the use of this reference to fried chicken. To adapt your own explanation above "reference to fried chicken is offensive because it has often been used in strong and aggressive abuse of people of afro-American origin".

How is calling a Pakistani a "Paki" a racist slur, since it's just an abbreviation? Answer: the historical context. Think about it, and then apply a similar reasoning to this situation. Is it racist to throw a banana at a black football player? Why? It's just a piece of fruit. It's a matter of associations in the mind.

You need to have it explained again? Did you read through the posts in this thread? Historically, white people in the US have used comments and jokes about black people eating lots of fried chicken in a derogatory fashion. They employ the association of blacks with fried chicken as a racial stereotype. It is often (but not always, of course) intended as a slur that is offensive. In that context, it is a racial slur. HTH.

It's a matter of context. And you don't understand that context. That's why you don't realise why it is offensive.

Georges Moustaki. You've never heard of him? Tant pis.

Wow! Mick McManus. That was a long time ago. Wrestling on ITV, Saturday afternoon, IIRC. And then there was Billy Two Rivers

Does the "Saga" ever end?

I think many parents become regular church-goers because they see a real value in the sense of community that it provides. They might not be strong, doctrinaire believers, but they appreciate the social aspect of the activity. Our society is now so atomised and self-centred, that many people are hungry for opportunities to congregate in a pursuit that is positive, non-threatening and non-commercial. I also think that the constant and rapidly-accelerating change in society is disorientating for many people. They want some sense of tradition and continuity in their lives. Belonging to a religious community serves that role. So, the debates about doctrine, theology and the clash between science and faith may be beside the point. "Belief in God" may be a minor, vestigial element in something more basic - a need to belong to a caring, trustworthy community.

Well, Dostoevsky once famously wrote: "Without God everything is permitted". In other words, he felt that non-believers would feel no constraints to how they could behave. This is a common view: no God, no basis for morals. Another angle that people put on it is this: without a sense of a divine being, people behave in a self-centred way. Only a sense of something beyond this mundane reality can prompt people to behave with compassion; otherwise they are primarily selfish and amoral. I don't believe either view, but these are two typical ways in which theism is linked to morality.

It's hard to imagine that moderns would think of "God" as a person. Man? Old man? White beard? Above the clouds? Thses are very ancient, unsophisticated notions. The only viable notion for a modern consciousness, it seems to me, is of a very abstract "supreme being". This concept is often labelled the "prime mover", the "first cause", or the "ground of being". But it's difficult to have a personal relationship with a "ground of being". How does one pray to such a thing?

The irony of this situation: the UK is a highly secular society. Huge numbers of people engage in a religious marriage ceremony in a church, but have virtually no involvement with that church, or any strong belief in that religion's doctrines and traditions. Gays who want to be married in a church, it seems to me, are demonstrating a real desire to have their union blessed by the religious institution they adhere to. Otherwise they would be quite happy to rely on the civil ceremony, and avoid all the heartache and prejudice they encounter with "religious" bigots. Another example of people confusing love with sex.

Some words denote real things - the words name objects in the real world. Some words denote abstract concepts - the words identify an idea, not a real object. Does love exist? Does courage exist? Well, we think we know to what they refer - we can point to experiences that show those ideas in action. But do they really exist? Behaviourists could argue that love doesn't exist - "love" being a special form of self-interest that helps the individual to survive. The term "God", likewise, denotes an abstract concept. To discuss the existence of a concept is different than discussing the existence of a real object. Another point to be made: philosophy had demonstrated pretty much definitively by the nineteenth century that the existence of God is impossible to prove - if we mean by existence something that has an objective reality, rather than a conceptual essence.

Well done, sir!

That's a fair summary. (You've put Gazziniga in the wrong group in that final summary - you gave him a 6.)