beigemaster

Very interesting point, so one could argue that by removing the religious element then the system actually becomes worse, or at least a lot less morally acceptable. In the interest of balance, this is a wiki quote on the decline of Islam's cultural and scientific movement Some have argued that if Islam had a reformation (like Christianity did with the likes of Martin Luther and John Calvin) then it would have continued to develop way ahead of the West.

Have to agree with you there. Intolerance, dogma, arrogance and ignorance are all corrosive elements of people, not religion as a concept. Even if you were to hypothetically wipe religion out of society, do you think life would really be better? Maybe I'm pessimistic but I have a sneaky suspicion that people would simply find other things to argue, take offence or fight over. Like it or not, this nation does have Christian routes and underpinnings which will always influence society as a whole. For example, a lot of historians have argued that capitalism is a direct consequence of the protestant work ethic. Or, if you're not a massive fan of capitalism how about the socialist structures created in this country such as the welfare state or the NHS, both of which (some argue) are routed within Christian ethics. How about Human rights- Thomas Aquinas, Hugo Grotius and John Locke- all natural law and natural rights philosophers who founded their principles on Christian values such as all men being equal. There is no question that these men have all influenced and constructed what we now call Human Rights, a concept that is actually difficult to justify on secular grounds. Of course you can argue that a lot of these ideas could be conceived and created within a secular context and in most cases I would agree. However, this does not reject that fact that these structures were created when Christianity was within the mindset of the majority of the population and still affects the UK today. Don't get me wrong, I don't want anyone's religious views or ideas that aren't open to reason or speculation forced down my throat, but neither would I simply try and dismiss all religious sentiments and ideas from the democratic arena. Like I said before, there are closed minded ignorant people on both sides of the argument which is why a balanced democracy with free speech and open debate is so important. Oh forgot to mention, if anyone thinks I'm being biased towards Christian influences see Islamic Golden Age and read about the 100's of examples of Islamic revolutionary advances in sciences, technology and philosophy

Out of interest, do you think we should still have the NHS or should we have a free market approach like in the US? As Mr Plod has already stated, if people were socially and economically responsible for their own health then this may not be such an issue. For example, if you’re paying tax, are you happy to pay for the health expenses of someone who chain smokes 40 cigs a day who will eventually need treatment for lung cancer? Obviously this isn't really an issue as the duty on cigs goes towards the NHS as an economic contribution to their treatment. Now if you take the same example for binge drinking the net costs are even greater. Apart from the health related problems and expenses, you have to cover for the extra police and emergency services and criminal damage costs (both physical and the legal bureaucracy). If an individual doesn't drink, should he/she have to help cover this cost? Unfortunately the free market does require restraint and governance on occasion, if it didn't, we would still have the slave trade.

If the scheme came into place with 50p minimum per unit, that takes the price of a bottle of cider from £2 to over £11 source so I don't think that argument works in the case of cider. Cider is ludicrously cheap in proportion to how much alcohol is in there hence why the scheme theoretically knocks up the cost of a bottle of cheap cider but not really touch the price of a good grade wine. I suppose you could argue that chavs will keep buying the Cider even at that cost, but the simple mathematical fact suggests that they will either no longer be able to buy as much or it will come at a proportional cost of something else (say being able to buy cigs).

My apologies, I thought your were fighting for the libertarian.

Some good points there. I suppose they couldn't simply ban alcohol because any party who suggested that idea would never get into power, would you vote for them? I guess in politics you have to play the game even if on the off chance you do have a genuine moral or ideological concern which is through the tax system. Another suggestion I heard was to take the licence away from supermarkets since the majority of people who go out are already pissed up on the cheap bottle of vodka they bought from Asda. Obviously supermarkets can undercut any competitor on alcohol because they own so much of the market. Personally, my concern isn't really that of a moral one, as you said, if people want to get pissed then they will just pay more money. My concern is the loss of the old fashioned pub, six closed a day if the Toriegrapgh is to be believed. Call me old fashioned, but I enjoy a good ale and some pub banter with my friends and I don't want that service taken away by people who would be happy to chug all night on a nasty, cheap, watery, fizzy rat pi55 pitiful excuse for a pint then staggering home after pi55ing on a war memorial. I guess they finished around 508 BC when people realised that to live in a society required social cooperation.

This topic has been in the public eye for a while now, here is the latest piece with links to previous topics. Also, here is a fantastic series about the history of the past 10 years, if you skip this episode to 33mins in then there is an interesting segment about where this culture came from (a response from the drinks industry to fight the rave culture apparently). What are you thoughts? Do you drink that much yourself and do you ever worry about your health or social responsibility or should we just have this conversation in the pub?

How about their own website?

So that will be about 3cm then? Sheffield, snowed over 2.5 inches in less than two hours this morning and it's still snowing, we'll still keep working though.

For me, the heroes are the men and women who go to work, get crap pay despite high levels of training, worse hours, assaulted, suffer constant risk of infection, no occupational liberties such as the right to strike and the only reward they get is the constant slander towards to institution they work for. In case you're not sure, I'm referring to nurses and HCAs. Don't get me wrong, being a soldier is obviously a tough job and of course there are many brave and heroic soldiers and although the nation may not agree with where/why they are fighting, the nation does justly maintain the support they need. I wish the same could be said about nurses and HCA's.

Interesting discussions going on in this thread, it seems that the discussion has split into two paths: 1. The nature of the military 2. Whether this Islamic group should have the right to protest I won’t go into 1 as there is already enough intelligent comments going on that subject. With regards to 2, has anyone here actually been on the Islam4UK website yet? I'll say a few things after having had a quick look. Mark, with all due respect (which I do for the majority of your comments) I don't agree that you can compare this group to anti war protestors: This is from the first couple of paragraphs from an open letter to the families of soldiers lost in Afghanistan. This isn't a group who are concerned with the Human and civil rights of the people of Afghanistan, it's just as spiteful political propaganda, bare in mind this group's main intention is to establish Shariah law in the UK. I also can't help to notice the ludicrous contradictions within this group's agenda. This is from the section with regards to their march: Controversial but we believe in a right for free speech in this country. However, with regards to Geert Wilders entering this country to show his controversial film that highlights some of the violent interpretations of the Quran we have: Also, note the posters "Freedom Can Go To Hell" I do sometimes think these extremist groups should sit down with a cup of tea and decide if they are fighting against free speech with free speech or enjoying the freedom to dismiss freedom, think they have got a bit confused in the message though. On a serious note, despite these spiteful politically motivated moves, I maintain they should have the right to protest and for the very same reason I defended the decision for Nick Griffin to be allowed on Question Time. I think people seemed to have forgotten the main benefits of Free Speech, it's not just a right that we should be allowed to enjoy for it's own sake, it is a tool and catalyst for democracies. By allowing even spiteful idiots (like Nick Griffin) the chance to speak you also allow them the chance to be challenged and (if they are indeed irrational vile people) they will be ultimately be proven to be morons. If you try and silence them, that’s like trying to put out a fire by pouring petrol on it, it will only give them more grounds and motivation to argue their case across. Finally, the use for free speech is to allow groups like this the right to a voice and then not challenge their opinions, I fear the growth of cultural relativism has generally silenced too many people who want to stand up for something they ultimately believe is right, but may cause offence so best keep it quiet.

Definitely Derwent, you could see the damm with the tower on it and they were in the “Three Roofs Café” in Castleton (enjoyed some good cream teas there). For the first time for years Clarkson did actually make an intelligent comment about how many people the government would employ if they wanted to remake all the road signs, a real kick in the teeth for ‘big government’. Episode wasn’t too bad although the Lexus film was a bit OTT.

There are quite a few examples of these types of paradoxes, for example "Can God create a stone that is too heavy for him to lift?" what they demonstrate is the nonsensical use of the term "all powerful". This nonsensical understanding is the idea that to be all powerful means to do anything even if it is logically contradictory. If God exists, then he/she is subject to the logical laws of reality, for example, he/she can't exist and not exist simultaneously or he/she cannot be morally perfect and be able to do evil. Nonsense remains nonsense whether it applies to God or not. When thinking about God's omnipotence, it can go so far as changing the laws of reality, (for example bringing someone who is dead back to life) but cannot change the laws of logic (he cannot make a person completely dead and also completely alive). Whether you think this is a weakened term of omnipotence is an interesting question, it seems to me that if a God exists and wanted to create reality then laws of logic would have to exist simultaneously with reality. Does that mean God "created" the laws of logic? Bit too much to ponder on a Sunday afternoon.

To be honest, I'm not really interested in these types of open ended questions. I prefer to study philosophy that is slightly more relevant to everyday life. As my friend once said, a lot of the speculations of philosophy are 'intellectual masturbation" very enjoyable to do but doesn't really have any purpose or point. I'm more interested in questions of ethics, political philosophy, philosophy of religion, and philosophy of science. Questions such as 'what is justice?' 'Why should I be good?' 'What makes an action right' ect.

Like the vast majority of these types of questions it depends who you ask. The scientist may give the descriptive answer (something along the line of sight is the strongest of our 5 senses and thus a deprivation will leave us naturally afraid as this would be a useful evolutionary tool) whereas the spiritualist may give a slightly more in depth answer to do with the fear of the unknown and the philosopher may give a more normative answer on the nature of what it is to be afraid ect. Depends what your world view is.

Because the water isn't the river, that is just water. The river is the continuing flow of water along a set route in the channel. If you stepped in and hit the same water twice then by definition it isn’t a river (as it's not flowing). This is obviously meant to be a metaphor for the problem of personal identity which isn't quite so easily answered because it's much more difficult to define a "person" unlike a river.

-No -Yes Next....

Determinism vs free will, discuss... Ironically, when this question is raised it tends to be the scientists and physicalists who insist free will even though physicalism/materialism is the platform for determinism. People of a religious or spiritual nature tend to argue for determinism even though that position does allow some free will.

No, you fools.

There's a very simple reason why it's illegal and will remain illegal. It is not based on morals or harm (just look at Prof Nut if you want confirmation) but due to the same reason why they would never enforce a law that required the elderly to stop driving (even though EVERYONE knows such a law should exist) and it's because young people (majority of people who smoke weed) don't vote, older people do. If you want to be in power, you have to appeal to the majority of voters, if young people don't vote then the government wont set policies in your favour (look at student top up fees). If you don't like it, try voting or get involved in politics. However, if you look at the majority of people's Facebook profile's under "Political Views" there will usually be an insightful comment such as "don't give a sh*t" or "f*ck knows" so I wouldn't hold your breath.

Make sure they are 'gifts' for other people and they are reasonably spread out. The group organisers have been told by the officials that if there are too many bulk purchases then they will be pulled out of the chart.

Amen to that, was just up at Crosspool and was half expecting to see Torvill and Dean go past. On a slightly unrelated note, does ABS and traction control actually work in very icy conditions or do they just surrender?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v2AYUqVNSsY Excellent

Number 1 on Amazon, Play and HMV. Number 2 on iTunes. How many people use this forum and how many of them would want to see Rage X-mas number one? Maybe a mass spam message is in order.