El Pibe

I hadn't, but they both work for me :)

SJ - "But if I'm not allowed to read this thread and say "silverfox is beyond hope. Again" because of philosphophical arguments, then I give up " Oooh, I kind of skirted this issue. I don't think anyone was saying that's the case SJ. In fact that was more or less the scenario hypothetically painted in the moral relativism thread you lunk too. I recall that *ahem* mockney was arguing that this is as much an invalid position as that of the moral absolutes. The idea that nothing can be said or judged because all positions that are held are equally valid. It's just the opposite end of the spectrum. What we have to do is find our own position that is either accomodated within the society that we belong to or attempt to change the ever-shifting moral tides of a society to better fit our views. I think Silverfox is of the feeling that he can no longer see the shore he once walked confidently on and is trying to pull that shore to him. You are well within your rights to say what you think within the moral framework of our society. Indeed this is a must have debate lest the shift in one direction is deemed to be some sort of moral tyranny. Moral shifts should be rational, justified and most importantly by social consensus. I believe that in this matter your feet are dry. We may disagree with the likes of Silverfox, and I believe are on the right side in this, but it would be a hard heart not to have some empathy at the very least with people who have seen their moral truths, those taught to them by parents, teachers, vicars (boo hiss) in the past, pulled out from under them in a confusing new world. *with apologies to silverfox for making him sound like an extra from Cocoon!!*

It probably helps if you work in the industry http://geekandpoke.typepad.com/.a/6a00d8341d3df553ef016763543dd6970b-800wi

Some interesting thoughts. I'm not proposing an ancient egyptian style stasis in government, just that policy porposals should be thoroughly analysed, and where consequences are foreseen, mitigated agasint or managed. Unforseeable consequences of course can't be, but there is a crucial semantic difference between unforseeable and unforseen! ;)

I'm afraid you've a weird view of cause and effect if you think this is a zero sum game net gain and loss redistribution. It's a very long way away from being that. How about a nice simplistic (straw man if you will) scenario. Tax is introduced. 100,000 families, mostly in the south east are forced to monetize* their houses as they are above some threshold. This floods the market with supply and brings down the prices as people are desperate not to end up being locked up for non-payment. First problem, what if this price drop means they are now below the threshold. Is the tax demand withdrawn or do they simply have less of a return on their property? In other words is there some sort of (expensive) beauracratic eye being kept on fluctuating markets? The supply of cheaper housing is now squeezed by that demand meaning lower value properties rise in prices meaning that people on the first rung or seeking to be so are now screwed. Where the zero sum in that? I think it's a net minus game. The only people gaining out of this are estate agents, speculators and the super wealthy buying up the properties as people are inevitably forced into renting. Admittedly it's only a possibility but not so far fetched. I'm afraid this policy sounds half-baked to me and these inevitably have consequences that optimistic pronouncements of 'it'll all work out' fail to reassure. *I'll retain american spelling as it's a stupid annoying american word. In this case I think the traditional term 'sell' would suffice. *edited for a billion typos*

That mockney knew what he was talking about. Whatever happened to him eh?

But, as usual, I digress. Back to the matter in hand....

Naa, I know I'm being picky but there are some things that we can be definitive about, but there are simply no absolutes. Even when we try to be concrete in our own definitions we often struggle? It all gets very grey very quickly.

Nope. (see what I did there?)

"strawman devil's advocating Gone Mad" I love this!! I think Loz has a fair point if we're going to get all philisophical. DJKQ is proferring some sort of moral absolutism. Given societal morals in our day she's definitely on safe ground in terms of social consensus and the direction we (the majority, not we the guardianistas) are trying to push society in and push society away from. But things always get shaky the moment anyone starts saying this is right and that's wrong. Loz is right to say that she has hitherto made a good case for why society should push for an end to discriminatory practices or mores agasint same sex relationships, their standings and opportunities, but declaiming an anti-discrimanatory absolutism deserves to be be pushed to its logical conclusions. I don't think that's straw man at all, and certainly isn't advocational devil or not, more reductio ad absurdum (aaagh, I hate getting all latin, but in this case it serves nicely; next person who uses 'ad hominem' in lieu of 'personal, I will shoot however).

Give me that over Man City v Liverpool any day of the week. Mind you, mocking that is a slippery slope. It's all eminently mockable.

2 parts growing up near there, the place just gave me the heebie-jeebies. 1 part West Ham bogey-team (much less so in recent years, but memories are long). Woking and Stevenage (my other team) had some mighty ding-dongs and crunch matches over the years, though again, Stevenage have moved on for the time being.

It's called pollydsyndrome; comments you make on the EDF being thrown in your face in a job interview. You are wise to be cautions Mr Job App.

We have giant foxes? Aren't they usually called wolves?

[some churches ban] "'mixed marriages' between heterosexual couples" Not to sideline the debate. Genuine point of curiosity if there are any examples of this? Other than that, as you were with the whole unquestioningly sticking to religious orthodoxy usually involves some degree of hypocrisy or willing suspension of critical faculties malarkey. In other news Pope catholic apparently.

101 Baaah.

I do my best ;) Quick to anger you may be and a couple of irrational hatreds you may have (don't we all, don't get me started on Luton Town or Woking), but when you're objective you're usually on or near the money.

Much as your relentless negativity about everything in the world that doesn't involve Finsbury Park Rovers or Lionel Messi tends to grind me down PD, I have to say I entirely agree with you on this one. I've seriously fallen out of love with the upper echelons of my beloved sport, but I reserve a special loathing for all that Chelsea represents and the part it has played in the corruption of the sport (and lets face it, it predates Abrmamovich, Bate's and his posthumous comments about Harding may well have started it for me).

Oh, and DNFTT

Just for you maxxi http://991.com/newGallery/Max-Bygraves-Singalongamax-Vol-491884.jpg

If I was interviewing for the job I'd let them know that JT is outof the club. Take it or leavbe it. Any manager who doesn't is grasping a poisoned chalice, albeit one worth a great deal of cash!!!!

silverfox - "Loz - So what is the 'centuries old meaning of marriage', SF - Male and Female" well, if you go back to the ancient greeks, fathers of our culture, overseers of the golden age of mankind (if you believe those Victorians) women were for procreation, love (including the physical variety) with a man was considered the purer form.

That was the point i was going to make. This actual special relationship between US and Israel has little to do with the Jewish vote. American Jews are increasingly dissillusioned with the ever hardening stance of Israel over the past 15 years and will only move further away. (I was in New york on Israel's independence day last year when there was a big march of american jews celebrating. THe most predominant banners were ones asking for peace and understanding and many actually carried palestinian falgs to the very vocal disgust of some older people I witnessed). Whilst AIPAC still has some clout in the fundraising stakes this actually comes much more from, as woodrot says, the christian fundamentalists who have become a powerful force in US politics. Actually there was a nice little Adam Curtis article about it the other day called who would god vote for.

Personally I think Obama should call their bluff. Let them do it and give them only limited financial/military support for the fallout (ie supply them with replacement interceptor missiles) and leave them flapping in the wind diplomatically. Current Israeli administration has been seriously taking the proverbial out to Obama tme and again (ie carefully timed announcements of expanded settlement construction set to derail fragile talks). It'd be nothing more than the commuppance they deserve. This is just politics though NN, surely this is far too vanilla for your superior esoteric knowledge.

So it's a good old fashioned inclusive community singalongamax with a copious dash of music snobbery. Nice! ....aaaaand we're buuuuyuuuuying a stai-air-air-airway to....heav-aaaaaAannnnnnnnnnnnnn!!!!! Aaaaaaaaah you goin' to Scaaaaarrr.......