|
Saatchi really doesn't give a gently caress does he
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2014 09:49
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 07:24 |
|
|
DesperateDan posted:
 Just a quick heads up, anyone who understands privilege theory knows that you can't "check" it and the ideas behind the whole "check your privilege" is people who went to privilege theory 101 and walked out after the first 10minutes.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2014 10:25
|
|
|
*sigh* I really am getting very annoyed at him saying stupid stuff like that. Very difficult to be a secularist when you have to try and defend him all the time and then realise he's sometimes indefensible.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2014 10:29
|
|
|
thehustler posted:*sigh* You don't have to defend him, he isn't the leader of atheism cause there isn't one. If you feel you have to try and defend Dawkins because you're both atheist you might aswell try and defend Hitler because you are both white.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2014 10:34
|
|
|
Edit: Double post, drat lag.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2014 10:38
|
|
|
Fluo posted:You don't have to defend him, he isn't the leader of atheism cause there isn't one. If you feel you have to try and defend Dawkins because you're both atheist you might aswell try and defend Hitler because you are both white. No no, it's not that I see him as some sort of figurehead (or... God... heh) - just that there is so much that he says that is actually very good and that I agree with and then he does something like that and its like it invalidates the other stuff. Or is that a silly position to take?
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2014 10:44
|
|
|
Fluo posted:You don't have to defend him, he isn't the leader of atheism cause there isn't one. If you feel you have to try and defend Dawkins because you're both atheist you might aswell try and defend Hitler because you are both white. We must secure the existence of our people and a future for athiest Children.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2014 10:50
|
|
|
Spangly A posted:Lords are conservatives, proper conservatives. Not reactionary right wing pieces of poo poo. So while they might slow down or attempt to block a lot of progressive reform, they've utterly shut down a lot of alarmingly undemocratic poo poo the tories have tried to pull, and the tories know that forcing through violations of human rights against public will and legislative process is a step they can't take. I see the argument that the Lords act quite well as a cork to stop parliament making GBS threads on everyone continuously, and that still doesn't really address the issue of why they aren't elected.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2014 10:57
|
|
|
thehustler posted:No no, it's not that I see him as some sort of figurehead (or... God... heh) - just that there is so much that he says that is actually very good and that I agree with and then he does something like that and its like it invalidates the other stuff. Not everyone is perfect, even the proler than thou types. You agree with the good and disagree with the bad. This can be godwinned pretty easy which I'll do it myself I guess, Hitler banned smoking in public places which is good. Hitler killed million of jews, blacks, homosexuals, mentally ill, disabled, trade unionists, Jjehovah witnesses and so on and so on. Hitler banning smoking was good, pretty much everything else he did was evil. This is the extreme. But in day to day less extreme world, everyone has different opinions on different subjects. If there was a political party for people with 100% same views there'd be 30million political parties in the UK (one or two people will 100% agree but they tend to be weird borg). Dawkins when on the subject of the field he spent most his life working in, is spot on alot of the time. However when he goes outside of field or goes abit more political atheism he starts to ramble. He's an old man and sadly we're very likely to end up seeming like him. Prior to 140 character twitter, you wouldn't see everyones day to day brainfarts from old men. Imagine if Karl Marx had twitter and he was drunk tweeted about him sleeping with the housekeeper. Or rambled on about some pet peev. I can't really get on with Dawkins personality but the work he has done in his field of science I love and respect. Edit: Also having a lovely opinion doesn't invalid other opinions. It's a debate tactic used by both the left and the right and it's pretty dumb. Well unless you preach feminism but at home chain up your black girlfriend screaming cotton picker as you physically beat her up but that's just outright hypocrisy. Fluo fucked around with this message at 11:01 on Jun 30, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2014 10:58
|
|
|
loving hell, you people and the last three pages.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2014 11:04
|
|
|
thehustler posted:No no, it's not that I see him as some sort of figurehead (or... God... heh) - just that there is so much that he says that is actually very good and that I agree with and then he does something like that and its like it invalidates the other stuff. Well it suggests you feel loyal to Richard Dawkins himself, rather than feeling sympathetic to some of the ideas that Richard Dawkins expresses. It's not exactly silly to take up that position, but it suggests that you see atheism/secularism as akin to a political/social movement (I.e. 'We need to rally around Dawkins for the greater good of the movement'), rather than an individual set of beliefs that you hold. To be honest, I think that insofar as atheism exists as a movement it is so compromised by many of the people that make it up that it isn't something that I would ever want to align myself to. I am an atheist in that I do not believe in the existence of any god or gods, and I think that religion is in some sense a purely human construct, but I don't see it as an essential part of my identity or something that I need to set out to defend against people with different beliefs. So the end result is that I think Dawkins says lots of things that are true and some that are interesting, but also lots of stupid or irrelevant things. And that's about the sum total of my feelings about Richard Dawkins.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2014 11:04
|
|
|
Fluo posted:Not everyone is perfect, even the proler than thou types. You agree with the good and disagree with the bad. This can be godwinned pretty easy which I'll do it myself I guess, Hitler banned smoking in public places which is good. Hitler killed million of jews, blacks, homosexuals, mentally ill, disabled, trade unionists, Jjehovah witnesses and so on and so on. Hitler banning smoking was good, pretty much everything else he did was evil. This is the extreme. If you're interested in evolutionary biology, and science generally, then don't bother with Dorkins, try Richard Lewontin, whose excellent and very accessible marxist-based take on biology and science, "Biology as Ideology", is avaliable on youtube. Dorkins at this point is clearly just a MRA born 60 years too late. It's his twitter ramblings that have exposed him properly, though going back and reading his books in a different light throws up all kinds of stuff you might not have paid attention to before.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2014 11:04
|
|
|
Zero Gravitas posted:loving hell, you people and the last three pages. You people?! This is pretty offensive.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2014 11:05
|
|
|
Fluo posted:Imagine if Karl Marx had twitter and he was drunk tweeted about him sleeping with the housekeeper. Well, at least then people calling themselves Marxists would have read what Marx had written.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2014 11:07
|
|
|
nuzak posted:I see the argument that the Lords act quite well as a cork to stop parliament making GBS threads on everyone continuously, and that still doesn't really address the issue of why they aren't elected. Because then they would reflect the make-up of the commons, and be bound to political parties, so would rarely if ever block legislation proposed by the majority? I'm not a big fan of the current Lords, but an elected upper house would be far, far worse.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2014 11:08
|
|
|
DesperateDan posted:
So discrimination law is only about feelings? Makes u think.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2014 11:15
|
|
|
Jedit posted:Well, at least then people calling themselves Marxists would have read what Marx had written.  I lol'd.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4XiJxQYge0s
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2014 11:15
|
|
|
A Sloth posted:So discrimination law is only about feelings? Makes u think. I am fully in favour of a law against hurting my feelings
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2014 11:38
|
|
|
Political atheism is pretty lovely, and I'm a pretty strong atheist. It's all white middle class boys running around thinking that someone saying "god bless you" is the worst crime in the history of the world. It's a reason why most atheist groups who want to do good stuff brand themselves as humanists.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2014 11:47
|
|
|
Crane Fist posted:I am fully in favour of a law against hurting my feelings https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uag2G0J6iqw
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2014 11:55
|
|
|
nuzak posted:I see the argument that the Lords act quite well as a cork to stop parliament making GBS threads on everyone continuously, and that still doesn't really address the issue of why they aren't elected. As soon as you put elections into the mix, then people start doing all the poo poo that is bad about electoral politics - lobbying, campaigning, accepting money, making promises (and then not following through), being controlled by the money. No elections - none of this poo poo. And if there's something that can be said about the Lords, it's that they (on the most part) take their jobs as legislative gate-keepers pretty loving seriously. You have a combination of experts of all sorts there who regard their roles as a responsibility and a privilege rather than as a career. Basically, the essence is that anyone who *wants* to run the country is generally the wrong person to do that. Having an unelected Lords means that there are some people who didn't actively seek power keeping a leash on the people who did.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2014 12:16
|
|
|
I think we should have some lords appointed by professional bodies and some chosen at random from the populace edit: and no house of commons Phoon fucked around with this message at 12:30 on Jun 30, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2014 12:27
|
|
|
I cant remember, am I doing the new OP tomorrow or is somebody else doing it?
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2014 12:28
|
|
|
Prince John posted:No doubt it's a view that will get me pilloried in here, but I'm actually a fan of an unelected second chamber. They don't have the power to permanently block legislation (the Parliament Act allows a government to force legislation through after being sent back twice) but the fact they can bounce it back usually results in sensible amendments to often hasty and ill thought-out laws. Wasn't aware of this; that actually makes a big difference. The Australian Senate can and does block legislation. Although actually it's probably healthier to have an upper house which can block legislation rather than effectively just having the lower house pass whatever it wants when it has a majority and enough patience - especially since you have five-year terms. Swan Oat posted:The Canadian Senate is also unelected Well you have no excuse.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2014 12:33
|
|
|
Gideon's still got a stiffy for merging national insurance into income tax: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/radical-tory-tax-plan-spells-the-end-of-national-insurance-9571800.htmlquote:Income tax and national insurance could be merged by a future Conservative government under plans to simplify the tax system through its biggest shake-up for decades. In principle it's not the worst idea in the world - it's certainly inefficient to have what amounts to two parallel income taxes. In practice, it's hard to disagree with John Mann's assessment that it would make it a lot easier for the Tories to argue for income tax cuts, and far harder for future governments to do what Brown did in 2002 when he increased NI contributions specifically to raise funds for the NHS.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2014 12:37
|
|
|
If done properly, merging NI with income tax could remove the higher 2p rate that the rich pay and have it a flat 12p across the board.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2014 12:55
|
|
|
LemonDrizzle posted:Gideon's still got a stiffy for merging national insurance into income tax: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/radical-tory-tax-plan-spells-the-end-of-national-insurance-9571800.html LemonDrizzle posted:Gideon's still got a stiffy for merging national insurance into income tax: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/radical-tory-tax-plan-spells-the-end-of-national-insurance-9571800.html Removing NI contributions makes it easier to forget that you're essentially paying for health insurance (and unemployment insurance and pension), so when private insurance/pension companies tout their cover there's nothing to compare their prices to. Seems like the next step in the Tory long game, to be honest.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2014 12:55
|
|
|
Phoon posted:I think we should have some lords appointed by professional bodies and some chosen at random from the populace Is this a joke? With select execptions the kinds of weirdos that make their way through the ranks of professional bodies are too craven and corrupt to even be elected as local councilors. Like you know they have those true crime shows? And there's a neighbour sobbing about how they can't understand how the creepy killer did it, because they were a pillar of the community? Always, always head of the local insurance brokers association or whatever.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2014 12:55
|
|
|
TinTower posted:If done properly, merging NI with income tax could remove the higher 2p rate that the rich pay and have it a flat 12p across the board. I think there might just be a teensy bit of vocal opposition to whacking an extra 10p in the pound onto the marginal rates paid by people earning over £42k.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2014 13:02
|
|
|
nuzak posted:If you're interested in evolutionary biology, and science generally, then don't bother with Dorkins, try Richard Lewontin, whose excellent and very accessible marxist-based take on biology and science, "Biology as Ideology", is avaliable on youtube. Politics and science shouldn't mix*. It can fog your judgement and make you a bad scientist (on both sides of the fence). *Political science is different to Science.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2014 13:10
|
|
|
Fluo posted:Politics and science shouldn't mix*. It can fog your judgement and make you a bad scientist (on both sides of the fence). Although bear in mind that in practice, this is very difficult if not impossible to achieve. Science has an ideology, and in turn the accepted practices, discourses, and prior experiences of the scientist will impact upon scientific policy and discovery - what is researched, what is considered acceptable/moral in research (take public funding of stem cell research for example), what is considered 'good' science (eugenics, phrenology etcetera) and so on. It is important to critically reflect upon scientific development, an to be aware of the extrinsic and intrinsic ideologies of science that impact upon scientific disciplines.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2014 13:29
|
|
|
HortonNash posted:Removing NI contributions makes it easier to forget that you're essentially paying for health insurance (and unemployment insurance and pension), so when private insurance/pension companies tout their cover there's nothing to compare their prices to. Seems like the next step in the Tory long game, to be honest. No, the next step in the Tory long game is to use tax cuts to defund the NHS while increasing their popularity and destroying that of any future government that says "We need to increase taxes or the NHS is hosed".
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2014 13:38
|
|
|
Pesmerga posted:Although bear in mind that in practice, this is very difficult if not impossible to achieve. Science has an ideology, and in turn the accepted practices, discourses, and prior experiences of the scientist will impact upon scientific policy and discovery - what is researched, what is considered acceptable/moral in research (take public funding of stem cell research for example), what is considered 'good' science (eugenics, phrenology etcetera) and so on. It is important to critically reflect upon scientific development, an to be aware of the extrinsic and intrinsic ideologies of science that impact upon scientific disciplines. That came up in the course I just did, looking at the competing contagion vs anti-contagion positions concerning the spread of cholera. People with an interest in free movement of trade and workers (middle class liberals according to the book) were more in support of the contagion view where the illness was passed through the air or dirty water because the conservative supported position that the disease was passed through human contact led to quarantines which hosed with their ability to trade. Also the funding for scientific research probably has a big effect if not on the results of the research (though it probably does) but what is considered important enough to look at in the first place.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2014 13:46
|
|
|
My google-fu is weak. I'm trying to find a graph showing the change in the cost of living (in London) over the last two years. Anyone know where I can find this? The results I'm getting aren't helpful.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2014 13:52
|
|
|
There's a fuckload of important scientists who's work should be judged by merit, not by how much of a felchbag they were/are. However, given that dorkins is trotted out every loving time by the media as the sole spokesman of atheism, atheists generally gonna feel bad about it, unless they follow the same atheistic fundamentalist zeal dorkins does. It's like having the westbro baptist church being interviewed on any matter of religion/morality while ignoring any other religious sect.A Sloth posted:So discrimination law is only about feelings? Makes u think. I dunno, maybe it depends on the english ethnic group you come from, maybe you can educate us don't Fluo posted:Just a quick heads up, anyone who understands privilege theory knows that you can't "check" it and the ideas behind the whole "check your privilege" is people who went to privilege theory 101 and walked out after the first 10minutes. it was a bad joke i promise not to use paint before coffee again
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2014 13:53
|
|
|
Can we stop with the "Dorkins" poo poo - regardless of how much he fucks up that's irritating as poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2014 13:57
|
|
|
thehustler posted:Can we stop with the "Dorkins" poo poo - regardless of how much he fucks up that's irritating as poo poo. your a dick
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2014 14:00
|
|
|
thehustler posted:Can we stop with the "Dorkins" poo poo - regardless of how much he fucks up that's irritating as poo poo. Didn't a mod come in to the thread and tell people to stop doing it because it's childish and petty a while back?
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2014 14:01
|
|
|
TinTower posted:Political atheism is pretty lovely, and I'm a pretty strong atheist. It's all white middle class boys running around thinking that someone saying "god bless you" is the worst crime in the history of the world. Many humanist societies have become just as bad. Kurt Vonnegut is turning in his grave.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2014 14:16
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 07:24 |
|
|
hookerbot 5000 posted:Didn't a mod come in to the thread and tell people to stop doing it because it's childish and petty a while back? actually it's good and funny.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2014 14:22
|
|