Loz

I've heard the story years ago and, at the time, checked it with a Russian-speaking friend (her mum was Russian). She said it was generally accepted as fact, though never quite proven.

> We need less debt in the economy - why are we subsidising it? Less debt = less money in the economy. Money is debt in the concept of fractional-reserve banking.

mikeb Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Couple of thoughts > > yes, remove tax deductibility of interest across the board not just for property. > Skews capital structure decision towards debt away from equity. That would make it near as impossible to start most businesses. > While we're at it, property gains should be taxable on realisation: if people are going to > treat property like an investment asset then it should be taxed like one. Do you mean ALL property? Because BTL/investment properties already are. If you mean even primary homes, then that would make moving rather difficult and therefore severely reduce mobility.

jamster Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Why should 'He' come before 'She'?! All the men in > this thread still miss the point. I love irony. Especially on this thread.

I reckon they run away from uncleglen's house. Completely outnuttered.

All of the Kiwis I know are animals...

Superb! More!

From your website... Is there actually any serious move to lower the age of consent? Fair enough. Within reason, I agree, but as long as the impetus is on the parents. Another part of you website claims "We support a system that requires internet users to opt in to view pornographic websites." Sorry, I couldn't disagree more. Opt out is the only fair system. I'd encourage it too. But doesn't it already happen? Or is this newspeak for 'we want to lock em up and throw away the key'? Lastly, I wish you wouldn't use the phrase "child sexual exploitation" when you clearly are only concerned with 'young women and girls'. Finally, out of interest, what was your motivation for setting this group up? Seems a strange thing to do out of the blue (if indeed, that was the case)?

What?

Most cyclists can barely carry a pint of milk and a couple of bananas. Sainsburys have no interest in them.

I don't a big problem with the God-botherers, EXCEPT WHEN THEY RING THE DOORBELL AT 9AM ON THE WEEKEND!!! The look of me, half asleep and looking like I've been dragged backwards through a hedge gets rid if them PDQ, but by then they have killed my sleep in. The muttered curses I send in their direction can't do their chances of entering the Kingdom of Heaven a lot of good.

legalbeagle Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > And there you go. You make what appears to be a sexist point and are called up on it. You go in to > a lengthy explanation of why, on your definition of something, it isn't sexist, and ask me to > accept that. > > And I do. Your original point was badly made. I have no reason to assume that your following > lengthy redefinition and explanation isn't sincerely meant, however self serving or otherwise > it may now look. It has a ring of plausibility. It could also be pulled apart. I'll choose to believe > you because we haven't met and I'm not in the habit of calling people I do not know a liar. > > It'd be nice if you did the same for others. > > Now if you don't mind, I'm not going to engage with you further. You've made your point. I've > made mine. We'll agree to disagree or you can argue with yourself. Pull my explanation apart if you don't accept it. Because I'm not accepting your explanation for the hell of it or because I don't believe what you said, I don't accept it because you were happy to leave the original post unchanged in its entirety. If I had said "Actually most women are hysterically funny. They just don't mean to be. Or see the joke." when I meant feminists then I would hastily type a explanation - AND I'd go back and fix the original, perhaps with an explanation to not make following posts look weird. I'd hate for the original erroneous post to be there for eternity showing my sexist faux pas. To me, it would mean to the world I really did mean it and intend for it to stay up. Apologies if I didn't make that clear.

legalbeagle Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Oh for goodness sake loz would you let it go. We > all get that you think I'm a sexist. Actually, as I've said before, I don't think you are sexist. I think you made one really dumb sexist post and I am trying to get you to see that. > We all get that you don't believe my explanations. And I'm pretty sure I'm not the only one. > However w> are trying to have an interesting debate, not a > debate about how much you have taken a personal dislike to me or the views you mistakenly think I > hold. I was not running a "gender angle" in my> original post, I was commenting on celebrity. That > does not mean that we cannot comment on other> aspects of a story, or that it cannot evolve. Well I'm terribly sorry I've interrupted your 'interesting debate' with an important principle. Actually... no, I'm not. > And incidentally, your comment on another thread: > > "Actually most serious feminists are hysterically* funny. They just don't mean to be. Or see the > joke. > > (* 'offensive' use of the word entirely intended)" > > Is very sexist. Perhaps we should start hounding you? Perhaps your own suggestion that those with > "dodgy" views shouldn't be allowed to get away with it applies just as well to you? Go for it. Start with *why* you think it is sexist, but bear in mind that 'feminist' is not the same as 'women'. It was a post designed to be offensive to feminists. That's not sexist. > Or perhaps you should just accept that you've made your point, and stop now. I'll accept I've made my point when you've understood it.

legalbeagle Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Definition of feminism, according to Oxford > Dictionaries: > > "the advocacy of women?s rights on the ground of > the equality of the sexes." > > On this basis, is anyone NOT a feminist? On that basis, it does look alluring. But, according to you moniker, you trade in the legal area. Surely you can see the massive legal loophole there? The main problem with feminism - and your definition - is that although it mentions the word 'equality', it is rather uninterested in the meaning of the word in a wider sense. (Admittedly, many feminists are committed to complete equality, but it is by no means part of the ideology.) Let's give a rather silly example, but one that paints the picture. Let's say Johnny has 10 red sweets and 2 blue. Jenny has 10 blue sweets and 2 red. By your definition of feminism, Jenny is suffering a serious lack of rights in the red sweet area. This must be rectified. Johnny must give Jenny four red sweets to maintain equality. But that is all the equalising we'll be doing here - the blue sweet issue remains how it is. Was that really equality? And anyway, Feminism is such a broad church of equalitists, misandrists, female separatists, rad-fems and every other variation you can think of, as an ideology it is, effectively, meaningless. Thus the 'baggage' comment. Issues like transsexuals can really throw a spotlight on some of the nastier, bigoted sides of feminism (c.f. the recent Julie Burchill rant.) And most women can see this - few want to identify directly with feminism because, frankly, it's public face is pretty damn poor. And, I'm afraid, rather deservedly poor. It's like saying that socialism is a good idea - and who can argue against it's basic tenets? - yet ignoring the history of the awful ways it has been put into practice. So do I think feminism (as practised) is a good thing? Obviously, no. Do I believe in equality across genders and races and sexualities and many other unnecessary discriminations society makes? Of course I do. It's the basis of all my politics. Thus, to answer you question, no. Everyone should not be a feminist. Everyone should believe in equality for all. Because the issues around equality are so complex, simple one-sided gender approaches just don't cut it any more. That is not to say that feminism hasn't made some great inroads into equality in the past. Just that maybe, just maybe, it needs to be retired to history and replaced with a better ideology that believes in equality more, well, equally. Hmmm. Maybe this is a thread of its own!

legalbeagle Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > According the the U.N. A woman in South Africa is killed by an intimate partner every six hours. > > According to data from the world bank, women aged 15-44 are more at risk from rape and domestic > violence than from cancer, car accidents, war and malaria. > > "Violence against women is not confined to a specific culture, region or country, or to > particular groups of women within a society. The roots of violence against women lie in > persistent discrimination against women." (Secretary Genera of the UN) I thought you weren't running with a gender angle? In fact, wasn't that the central tenet of your (*cough^) 'explanation'? Your post smelt before. It smells real bad now.

The newish block of flats half way up DKH next to Sainburys. Awful building in a nice location.

KalamityKel Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > darn that was a misleading thread title! there was > me thinking "what? a funny feminist? surely not! > aint that malarky all meant to b serious and > stuff?" Actually most serious feminists are hysterically* funny. They just don't mean to be. Or see the joke. (* 'offensive' use of the word entirely intended)

Pretty good. I don't see it as a 'feminist' comic (and all the baggage that would entail), but just a comic for girls showing a positive, interesting, identifiable character. (Though they need to cut down the resolution to pick up the awfully slow loading speed!)

Otta Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > However, I suspect that S&L like many a genius > before them are merely unappreciated in their own lifetimes. Can we speed up the process?

treehugger Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I like Tessa. Well, she's better than Mad Hattie. But that's not hard.

legalbeagle Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Loz, again I'll disagree. It wasn't sexist and that explanation was accepted by the person that > asked. Ill withdraw to bed now, since my posts are meant to focus a discussion on celebrity in > media, not whether you think I am sexist, which adds nothing to what I want to debate. Sorry, but I'm not willing to have this swept under the carpet. You don't get to decide if your post was not sexist. It's not your call, else everyone with dodgy opinions would be exonerating themselves. Sexism and racism should never be just pushed aside like you are attempting to do. And I assume you mean Otta as the "person that asked". I see no indication he accepted your 'explanation'. Maybe he can clarify.

Is this a poor satire on Diane Abbot's twitter fiasco?

legalbeagle Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > And enough with the sexism nonsense. That's really all I'm asking. I, and others, have quite rightly called you out for it. It may have been a poorly worded post. You could have gracefully withdrawn it. You chose to defend it, rather badly.

legalbeagle Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > No Loz, the post was not sexist. Chosing not to > believe the explanation is a matter for you, not me. It is. And I don't. And it was. And I'm not the only one that thought so.

legalbeagle Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > No Loz I think you have the point exactly. Our news is about celebrity. Treatment of other people > in the "story" is poor and disrespectful. That's it. But were they treated 'poorly and disrespectfully'? Yes, the Sun made the normal hash of it, but most other media outlets I've seen have named and described her pretty respectfully.