Why not use the entirely correct term "ephobophile" instead of the incorrect pedo- or paedo- forms?
1159 posts • joined 12 May 2010
"Is that even legal?"
Yes, but they can't demand you comply legally, then can only ask politely. If you've not been arrested, you are under no obligation to provide anything and if you are arrested then you have the right to remain silent.
You can be stopped and searched if you are arrested, if the officer believes you are engaged or are about to engage in a crime and they have reasonable cause for suspicion (PACE 1996), or if they believe you may be engaged in an act of terrorism, planning an act of terrorism, or gathering information likely to be of use to a terrorist organisation (s.44 & s.45 of the anti-terrorism bill).
Here's a quick guide from UK.GOV :
The mistake the fella made was to swear at the officer. Be calm and polite. Insist on your rights. Always ask what section and paragraph they are acting under. Always ask to speak to a superior officer even if that means going to the station.
"The best science can say is that it doesn't know whether God (as in: creator of the universe) exists or not."
I agree with you on this. My problem is that religion asserts that it does know and that its understanding is irrefutable. I believe that we don't know, cannot really know, suspect that there is no god and have no evidence to support the idea. Logic, reason and observation support the idea that there is not. On balance, the evidence is against.
" Does this make their action moral?"
That's an interesting concept, kinda like the tree falling in the forest, and it sparks two thoughts in me. First, are you suggesting that someone religious who committed such a crime would not escape judgement? I assume you think they will be punished in some after-life, which clearly means that they are still a threat in "this world" until such a time as they face that judgement. I don't see how morality or society is served by such a belief. Secondly, no, I don't think they are moral because they didn't get caught. If caught later, they would still be accountable to that society. I think this is just a "mortal" failing, if you will allow me that word. Society is not perfect and sometimes justice and the social contract doesn't get it right. I'd argue that Religion (as an alternative to the social contract) is no less fallible. Finally, would you argue that religious people are always moral and would not commit the same crime? Thin ice, I think you'll find.
"Doesn't justify people risking their lives to save others."
Yes, it does. Remember how I said that the social contract is strengthened by the greater whole? If you allow the greater whole to suffer then the contract is weakened. I save someone from the fire in the trust that they would save me too, should I be in that same situation.
Let me reflect that back to you. If someone was suffering in a fire, or from an illness or an injustice, how does the deist justify intervening? Surely that suffering is gods will and thus infallible? What motivates them to save someone from a burning building? Why should they risk their life? Surely, if you die, its gods will and you go to "a better place"? Since when did mortal man get to gainsay that?
" If God created this universe, then we play by God's rules. It's His universe, after all."
An abusive parent builds the environment the abused child lives in. This should be allowed because the parent constructed the environment? If god is the father and we are his children then does it follow that the children should endure all the rules, right or wrong, and have no right to question or refute the rules of the environment? An unjust law cannot be morally obeyed without question, surely?
Whether god created things or not, this viewpoint is limited to say the least and immoral at best. If god does exist, then he should be held account for the evil he has clearly inflicted upon humanity over the aeons. Its no use saying that we, or the devil, creates evil either because the implication there is that something has been created beyond gods will which in turn would invalidate the idea of his omnipotence. Either he has created all things, and thus is responsible for all things, including suffering and the evils of man, or he has not created all things and thus is not omnipotent.
I will accept your point on my conclusion. It matters no more than yours does or does not after all. Unlike most religions, I as an aethist do not insist that you accept my conclusion and ask only that you consider it. Aethists do not have apostasy.
"To be an atheist, there has to be another 'deity' above God, whether that deity is real or supposed by us, for Him to disbelieve in."
This response is laughable. Aethists do not accept the presence of god(s) at all, so we do not need a god to not believe in. I don't believe in invisible pink unicorns either, so does that mean they must therefore exist? I think you need to chew that one over a little more. God, if such a being exists (and I do not preclude the idea, I just don't believe there is any more evidence for such than any other unfounded belief) then if I were to ask that being "who made you" what answer would I get? If its anything other than "my creator" then, by definition, the answerer does not believe in a Creator themselves, making them at least agnostic.
"We're wandering to a totally different debate: the omnipotence of God as opposed to the problem of evil being discussed here."
You started it. You established your argument with a statement of premise that something was a given absolute truth; that god is omnipotent. This is the basic problem of theologists; they proceed from an unproved assertion of one kind or another; god is real, the bible is factual, faith is personal and cannot be disproved etc. etc. If you are going to found your dissertation on a statement, then that statement must also be proven accurate or you are proceeding from a fallacy. I could, for instance, using your method, refute all your arguments by saying "Thor, and the other Norse gods are real, therefore your younger religion is baseless". It'd be equallty false, of course.
" I'm done with this, unless you provide other arguments."
You were "done with this" before I even raised my point, and now you seek to abandon the argument and retreat in the face of reason. Again, typical theology; can't deal with even the merest touch of reductionist logic being applied. You approached this debate with a statement of fact (as far as you were concerned) and offered no evidence and I assume you know what they say about extraordinary claims. The onus is on you to provide evidence for the existence of your particular deity (as opposed to the remaining 178 recognised gods), not on me to prove that you are incorrect. Although, I'm happy to continue pointing out how theological (a contradiction in terms if there ever was) argument are always irrational because they proceed from false premise and assumption.
"what's to prevent anybody from engaging in...."
It's called the social contract. I don't do bad things to you, on the understanding that you won't do those bad things to me. Together, in this way, we prosper through cooperation. If one individual breaks the contract, then the greater number that abide by it can take collective action to reinforce it. Morality does not require religion, and I am often concerned when religious people ask where morality can come from if not from god; the implication being that if they weren't afraid of gods wrath they *would* be immoral. Scary.
"He ordered you to worship, therefore, He must be obeyed?"
Yes, or you get cast into the pit of fire for all eternity, for you are either with god or against god. I therefore conclude that god is dysfunctional and probably sociopathic. I also conclude that god is an atheist, as he doesn't believe someone divinely created him.
Is no one seeing the contradictions in these positions?
Companies are accused of a) hiring more men, who cost more than women (allegedly), because they are sexist and give preferential treatment to said mem and b) fire older men because they are more expensive to maintain than younger ones.
Surely, if both of these things are true then what we'd see is companies hiring younger women by preference because they are cheaper.
I don't get it. Surely they can't both be true?
"I'd not be surprised if there was not a rise in TV licence applications in the locality with such a van parked there for long enough."
Chances are good that the old style TV detector van was a myth, despite the adverts claiming elsewise, and never actually worked/were operated.
It appears, however, that in the age of smart TVs, the idea is making a comeback. Interesting implications; that a private company can consider wifi sniffing and suchlike without reference to GDPR or the DPA, eh?
" so how the heck they have the time to go looking for criminals when there have been no complaints of a crime"
Because the role of the police is shifting/has shifted from protection of the public and investigaton of crimes to prevention of crime and monitoring of the public in pursuit of that. Of course, this is only nominally the excuse, the truth is that the police are now an instrument of social control and are only maintained sufficiently to present a veneer of law enforcement.
If you want to know how "law and order" are evolving in the UK, take a long, hard look at the nature, history and remit of the NCA (National Crime Agency).
Say hello to the secret police.
"why are you turning this around into how it affects men?"
Because the desired outcome postulated by the complainant is a behavioral change in men, requiring them to think and respond differently to how they have previously. Therefore, this affects men. Therefore the men on this forum are talking about how it makes them feel and how they respond to it.
Or would you rather we all just shut up and do as we're told without debate or discussion? Perhaps we should check our privilege and stay silent?
Well, I have news for you.....
"And banning / supervising one by one, "extremist content", "pirated content", now "filthy content" "
Don't forget the most damaging banned category of all; esoteric content.
It was under Camerons watch that the list of things-to-be-banned was first created and the contents of that list has not really changed much since. Esoteric is a very broad category of things, roughly defined as things that are not in the mainstream, but it allows for the blocking of websites of all kinds; alternative religions, conspiracy sites, BDSM discussion forums, and, perhaps most importantly, alternative political views. Pretty much its carte blanche to ban any website on the basis of "we don't like this because its not our version of 'normal'".
"And they say that no man can ever truly appreciate the pain of childbirth..."
Sure they can, and much worse. Go ask someone to kick you in the crown jewels. I garuntee you won't want to go back for a second kick. On the other hand, I know a lot of women who want, or have, second or even third children. Clearly, therefore, the kick in the nuts must be worse.
"The problem with the Dutch is that they always make tea of boiled water"
Your Dutch colleague is quite right; you shouldn't use boiling water on some tea because it will scald the leaves and ruin the flavour.
"The best temperature for brewing tea depends on its type. Teas that have little or no oxidation period, such as a green or white tea, are best brewed at lower temperatures between 60 °C and 85 °C (140-185 °F), while teas with longer oxidation periods should be brewed at higher temperatures around 100 °C (212 °F). The higher temperatures are required to extract the large, complex, flavorful phenolic molecules found in fermented tea, although boiling the water reduces the amount of dissolved oxygen in the water."
Anita Sarkeesian is a man-hating, narcissistic, money-grubbing, self-promoting liar of the first order. She is the Katie Hopkins of feminism, and will stoop to any levels to push her made-up illogical and poorly researched agenda down the throats of stupid people worldwide.
Change my mind.
" When in reality, his [Trumps] approval within the USA is steadily rising."
A swift google search clearly shows that the vast majority of polling and media companies consider Trumps approval ratings to be between 35% and 40% depending on the methods used.
Of course, Breitbart and Fox are claiming the precise opposite and if you get your news solely from them, then it would explain how you may have been misled.
Here's my search results:
GOP: We can't have gun regulations, they just won't work!
Also GOP: Let's ban abortion, gay marriage, and, what the hell, Muslims.
If guns were as hard to get in the US as abortions, there would be a lot less guns.
"Really? The OECD would beg to differ"
The OECD commit the same fallacy that everyone else does; they don't take age demographics into account. In some age ranges (over 30's IIRC) there is pay gap (probably due to long term and outdated employment contracts). If you look at the pay gap for people under 30, you'll find that not only is it far, far more equal, but in some areas and roles, women now earn more than men.
I do not deny that there is a pay gap, and from this report you can see that, in full time employees, there is as much as a 9.4% gap in favour of men, but the same report also highlights that the rate at which pay rises are applied favour female staff by around 7% per year. The times are a-changing, and we need to recognize that its not the 1970's anymore.
I see your OECD and raise you the ONS report:
Here's another link that will be useful to anyone discussing this situation in the UK. It's the law, clearly explained, by the Citizens Advice Bureau. It lays out precisely what is and is not discrimination. Take special note of the illegality of provision of services based on gender and the fact that Positive Discrimination is still discrimination.
"It is not illegal to limit the job ad reach according to locality. It is illegal to limit the job ad reach according to gender."
Mmhm. Quite so. Perhaps then you can explain these businesses and their hiring policy?
http://www.femalebuilders.co.uk/index.html (Female only builders)
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/women/womens-business/10786110/White-van-women-Men-shout-at-us-for-being-sexist-were-a-girls-only-removal-firm.html (Female only logistics)
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-42997068 (We only publish female writers)
http://worldscreen.com/tveurope/2018/01/31/new-london-based-all-female-production-company-launches/ (Women only theatrical production/promotion company)
or, how about all these jobs that are advertised as female only? Granted, some of them should be (female models, gym instructors, carers etc.) but some should not (modelling agent, Sales assistant, early years practitioner etc.).
If people want equality then they need to practice equality. The Law should be applied equally to all, and opportunity should be open to all.
And yes, these companies are breaking the law.
"Being told that we have to buy something is anathema"
You ever heard of taxation?
You pay an amount of taxes, decided upon by someone else, democratically elected. Some of those taxes go into a defence budget that is then used to maintain a military to keep all Americans safe from things that might harm them.
Try replacing the words "Defence" and "Military" with the words "Healthcare" and "Medical service".
Or do you think that being forced to pay for a military that may never defend you is a similar waste of your money? After all, some of that defence may be used to defend people who can't afford to defend themselves, and you're clearly being forced to pay for that. Perhaps the defence budget should be scrapped and every American should decide what level of defence they want for themselves, then source it and finance it independently, and if someone can't afford it then that's their problem. You'll only defend yourself if and when someone attacks your country, right?
Perhaps education should be the same? Or civil infrastructure?
Your argument doesn't hold water.
Well said, Terry 6. A nice description of the distinctions between political philosophies, but please, allow me to simplify it for some of the more hard of thinking types we have screaming about their freedumbs…
Dear Trump Voter:
Capitalism = Put the money first, above and beyond everything else, including people, collectively known as society.
Socialism = Put society, the people, first, above and beyond everything else, including the creation of wealth, known as capital.
Money, sat in a bank, holds no power in and of itself. Only when money is used to benefit society, does its true power become manifest.
Thanks for the superb answer to my hypothesis; you have many valid points and observations there. The only area I'd take some issue with is this:
"You can't externalise a jail term...  ...For example here in the UK, management are personally criminally liable for health and safety failings, in sufficiently severe cases"
It's rare, if ever, that this is the case. The underlying concept of a Public Liability Company (PLC, LLC in the US, as defined in the Incorporation Act 1926) is to remove/mitigate the personal liability of individual investors, owners and employees of a company and make the company as a whole liable. The intended effect is that, with less at risk, investors will invest more capital making corporations stronger and better.
A PLC doesn't need to externalize a jail term, because, being non-corporeal, it will never face one - only fines. This, alongside financial externalization, means its nearly impossible to actually punish a PLC as a whole and even harder to hold a CEO accountable for the actions of the company itself.
Only since 2014 has the law begun to really consider personal liability of individual employees, under something called Deferred Prosecution Agreements, but these can be used as a form of externalization in and of themselves allowing a PLC to say "Oh! that wasn't us that did the Bad Thing, it was this specific employee, the bastard! Let us hand them over to you...." - A good example of this was the LIBOR fraud a few years back where specific employees were identified by the banks involved and handed over to the law.
Judge this as you will, but murky waters it certainly is.
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019