[Seany]

How about Jeebus? I can twust in Jeebus can't I? Please tell me I can George.. Pweeze!! I always twusted in him!! []

Yes, I guess your right George. No one is 100% trustworthy, but when you get to know them, you know which circumstances you can trust them in, but sometimes you have to pass, even if it is your 95% trustworthy friend.

[elegantlywasted]

You are certainly entitled to your opinions but this is the way that I have chosen to live my life, and I am more than happy with the outcome.

I understand that no one is 100% trustworthy, I have been burned enough to know that. I build up my relationships slowly rather than deconstructing them from the beginning, it works...

On a different note... hows the weather across the pond?

[another_someone]

You are certainly entitled to your opinions but this is the way that I have chosen to live my life, and I am more than happy with the outcome.

I understand that no one is 100% trustworthy, I have been burned enough to know that. I build up my relationships slowly rather than deconstructing them from the beginning, it works...

OK [] - we all must choose our own path (although I am not sure how much the paths diverge, and how much it is just different labels we place along the same waypoints on that path).

On a different note... hows the weather across the pond?

(is this a subtle way to change the subject [?][])

I think the word is changeable (is it ever otherwise).

We have not had rain now for a little while (although I can only speak for the south-east - it could be different elsewhere in the country); but we have had generally overcast mornings, but bright afternoons, with temperatures in the early 20's centigrade.

My mother is presently in Israel, where I understand it is chilly, and she is having to borrow warm coats to go outside.

[elegantlywasted]

Quote from: elegantlywasted on Today at 16:59:51
On a different note... hows the weather across the pond?


(is this a subtle way to change the subject )

I think the word is changeable (is it ever otherwise).

That sounds alright, its around 20 degrees C here too, but nice and sunny seeing as it was snowing here 4 days ago it is a welcome change!

[paul.fr]

I for oneam an american and believe no to americans are perfectly alike, nor do we all share Tony's opinion. LOL I do however believe he has the right to it,

Karen, whilst i agree that we are all entitled to our opinions, some opinions should be kept to ones self. What is different to one person saying move all the mexicans out of mexico and another saying all the jews out of israel, muslims from serbia? the reason they all give are different but the result is the same.

You are certainly entitled to your opinions but this is the way that I have chosen to live my life, and I am more than happy with the outcome.

I understand that no one is 100% trustworthy, I have been burned enough to know that. I build up my relationships slowly rather than deconstructing them from the beginning, it works...

On a different note... hows the weather across the pond?

Meg, i totally anderstand this position. i treat people in a similar way.

I am not even sure that I would be comfortable with the responsibility of having somebodies unconditional trust - it would imply that the person did not understand me, and that the person was somehow putting me on a pedestal that I did not deserve.

George, get married, become a mother or father. are you not giving or receiving unconditional trust - and love to and from the other person?

personally i think subjects like this and god real or not have no place in a science forum, what do they achieve? nothing,

like i said before, opinions like those expressed only help to reinforce peoples steretypical perceptions of people/nationalities and races.

Americans are fat, lazy, self centred and thinks the world owe them. mexicans are stupid, dirty and lazy. french are garlic eating surrender monkies. muslims are terrorists who beat their wives. this is what people think. you can argue that it is wrong to group them all together, but it happens, topics like this only encourage and confirm those opinions.


ok, thats my rant over and my last post in this topic.

[another_someone]

Karen, whilst i agree that we are all entitled to our opinions, some opinions should be kept to ones self. What is different to one person saying move all the mexicans out of mexico and another saying all the jews out of israel, muslims from serbia? the reason they all give are different but the result is the same.

Sorry, I have to totally disagree with you.

What is the value of keeping an opinion to oneself.  If you keep your opinions to yourself, then you simply deny others the opportunity to challenge your opinions.  Do you consider that really to be a beneficial situation.

If you have controversial opinions (or any strongly held opinions at all) you should learn to be able to discuss those opinion with respect for opposing opinions, but discussion is the only path forward - not denial.

If you do not understand why some people might wish Jews out of Israel, or Muslims out of Serbia, then how can you ever hope to deal with the tensions at the heart of such issues.  Maybe their solutions are wrong, and unacceptable; but it is a basic necessity that their voices be heard.

George, get married, become a mother or father. are you not giving or receiving unconditional trust - and love to and from the other person?

Have you any brides in mind, or should I just advertise? []
As for becoming a mother - that would indeed be an interesting feet.

personally i think subjects like this and god real or not have no place in a science forum, what do they achieve? nothing,

In general, I think the airing of such opinions is more valuable then letting them fester.

As to whether a science forum is the appropriate place to air them; this is the matter I have myself asked in the past, but I do not make policy, and the policy is that allowing the broad, chatty, nature of the site to continue without bounds (so long as also maintain the strong science core) is to the benefit of the site.  Not my decision, but if that is the policy, then all I can do is follow it.  If these topics are to be discussed within the remit of the site, then I am as willing to discuss them as anything else (as I said, I do not believe in the suppression of opinion - although opinion should be expressed as tactfully as can be achieved).

like i said before, opinions like those expressed only help to reinforce peoples steretypical perceptions of people/nationalities and races.

Only if you believe that the stereotypes have sufficient substance that the opinions would indeed support those stereotypes.

Americans are fat, lazy, self centred and thinks the world owe them. mexicans are stupid, dirty and lazy. french are garlic eating surrender monkies. muslims are terrorists who beat their wives. this is what people think. you can argue that it is wrong to group them all together, but it happens, topics like this only encourage and confirm those opinions.

As you say, there are some people who believe such things; but topics like this give people the opportunity to disabuse them of such prejudices; which cannot happen if you deprive people the opportunity to openly and honestly discuss their prejudices (even if they do make you uncomfortable).

[paul.fr]

Sorry, I have to totally disagree with you.

i expected that!

What is the value of keeping an opinion to oneself.  If you keep your opinions to yourself, then you simply deny others the opportunity to challenge your
 opinions.  Do you consider that really to be a beneficial situation.

If you have controversial opinions (or any strongly held opinions at all) you should learn to be able to discuss those opinion with respect for opposing
 opinions, but discussion is the only path forward - not denial.


If you do not understand why some people might wish Jews out of Israel, or Muslims out of Serbia, then how can you ever hope to deal with the tensions at
 the heart of such issues.  Maybe their solutions are wrong, and unacceptable; but it is a basic necessity that their voices be heard.

The problem here George, is that you have already stated that we/i should give some allowance for the age of the poster. How can we/i challenge the views when kid gloves have to be applied? Adult questions should be answered in an adult way with appropriate language and conviction.

Have you any brides in mind, or should I just advertise? []
As for becoming a mother - that would indeed be an interesting feet.

This was not a suggestion, i was simply implying that by becoming a mother or father. are you not giving or receiving unconditional trust! If you don't give unconditional trust in a marriage how do you expect it to last? Would you not be happy with your children giving you unconditional trust? All children should have unconditional trust for their parents. How can a child progress if it does not? Why enter in to marriage if you do not trust, unconditionally the other?

In general, I think the airing of such opinions is more valuable then letting them fester.

As to whether a science forum is the appropriate place to air them; this is the matter I have myself asked in the past, but I do not make policy, and the
 policy is that allowing the broad, chatty, nature of the site to continue without bounds (so long as also maintain the strong science core) is to the
 benefit of the site.  Not my decision, but if that is the policy, then all I can do is follow it.  If these topics are to be discussed within the remit
of the site, then I am as willing to discuss them as anything else (as I said, I do not believe in the suppression of opinion - although opinion should
be expressed as tactfully as can be achieved).

OK, agreed. you can not stifle debate. But there are better places to post such idea's. Political forums would love such topics, there are plenty around. My personal opinion is that people tend to post such topics to antagonise and offend. Struggling for a topic to post! i know lets start a topic, such as this, or about god, or we never went to the moon. These are topics designed to annoy people and get lots of replies.

i know what about a topic where i suggest that all Jews should be evicted from the Bronx, because they have lots of money and there are a lot of poor African Americans living there. or what about state sponsored euthanasia at the age of 50 because we can not afford their pensions. Or kill all overweight people because there are starving people in Africa. if i write that i am only a teenager and put a smiley face on the end of my post it will be OK.

all pretty ludicrous idea's but should we tolerate them?

Only if you believe that the stereotypes have sufficient substance that the opinions would indeed support those stereotypes.

It's not what i believe that counts, people follow like sheep, the opinions of other. Their peers, parents and what they read in the gutter trash news. Ask the man on the street why we went to war in Iraq? what will his answer be? because we followed America and they only went there for the oil. how did they come to this conclusion because they heard it from their peers or read it in the newspaper.

we have a serious issue of the TV news and the printed news being dumbed down, nothing is questioned just simple statements made and hay, if its on the news it must be true.

people no longer question what they are told they just go with the flow.

As you say, there are some people who believe such things; but topics like this give people the opportunity to disabuse them of such prejudices; which
 cannot happen if you deprive people the opportunity to openly and honestly discuss their prejudices (even if they do make you uncomfortable).

but the discussing of the topic has been restricted because of the age of the poster!

and for the record, yes i apologised for my initial post because of his age. Not for what i said, you somewhat back me in to that corner because of a previous comment i made about a reply to one of Anastasia's questions

[another_someone]

The problem here George, is that you have already stated that we/i should give some allowance for the age of the poster. How can we/i challenge the views when kid gloves have to be applied? Adult questions should be answered in an adult way with appropriate language and conviction.

I am not sure what you mean by “adult language”, but I suspect it has more to do with the language of the school playground than with the tactful and considered response of a mature adult.  I do not consider that telling people they should not be allowed to express their honestly held opinions to be a mature adult response.

I think we did, for the most part, have an adult response, with, for the most part, adult language (by which I mean, language that was courteous but to the point).  I believe that the respect we showed Tony while disagreeing with his idea allowed Tony to, in a totally adult and mature way, reconsider his ideas without feeling he had to defend his ideas as a matter of honour.  I think it shows great credit to Tony that he did respond as he did.

This was not a suggestion, i was simply implying that by becoming a mother or father. are you not giving or receiving unconditional trust! If you don't give unconditional trust in a marriage how do you expect it to last? Would you not be happy with your children giving you unconditional trust? All children should have unconditional trust for their parents. How can a child progress if it does not? Why enter in to marriage if you do not trust, unconditionally the other?

So that probably reaffirms why I have never gotten married, or become a parent.

OK, agreed. you can not stifle debate. But there are better places to post such idea's. Political forums would love such topics, there are plenty around.

Personally, I would not disagree with this; but, as I said before, I do not make policy.

My personal opinion is that people tend to post such topics to antagonise and offend. Struggling for a topic to post! i know lets start a topic, such as this, or about god, or we never went to the moon. These are topics designed to annoy people and get lots of replies.

Posting in order to generate replies is not uncommon, even for some of the science topics.  Many consider that it serves a useful purpose (within limits) to ensure a continuity of flow of the forum, and give others more confidence to post if they see lots of other people posting.

If a post is designed to ruffle a few feathers, and challenge orthodoxy, then I find nothing wrong with that.  Where a post is followed up by an arrogant refusal to see why the views the person puts forward will not work, then I do have a problem (and in some cases this does happen, but equally it is by no means universally the case).

i know what about a topic where i suggest that all Jews should be evicted from the Bronx, because they have lots of money and there are a lot of poor African Americans living there. or what about state sponsored euthanasia at the age of 50 because we can not afford their pensions. Or kill all overweight people because there are starving people in Africa. if i write that i am only a teenager and put a smiley face on the end of my post it will be OK.

all pretty ludicrous idea's but should we tolerate them?

Tolerate?  What do you mean by tolerate.

If, in some hypothetical situation, you were genuinely to believe that, then it is not for us to tolerate or not tolerate - the opinion is a matter of fact.  The question must be how best we respond to that opinion, not whether we can forbid you from having the opinion.

If you were to genuinely hold such an opinion, I don't think that my jumping up and down, waving my fists in the air, and calling you all sorts of rude names, will in any way cause you to change your opinion.  This is true, whether you be 6, 16, or 60.

Only if you believe that the stereotypes have sufficient substance that the opinions would indeed support those stereotypes.

It's not what i believe that counts, people follow like sheep, the opinions of other. Their peers, parents and what they read in the gutter trash news. Ask the man on the street why we went to war in Iraq? what will his answer be? because we followed America and they only went there for the oil. how did they come to this conclusion because they heard it from their peers or read it in the newspaper.

we have a serious issue of the TV news and the printed news being dumbed down, nothing is questioned just simple statements made and hay, if its on the news it must be true.

people no longer question what they are told they just go with the flow.

Firstly, what I meant by my comment was that a cool and calm debate about a particular stereotype should only reinforce that stereotype if that stereotype reflects an underlying reality.  If you believe the stereotype to be false (and most, in the broader application, are),  then you should have no fear in debating the matter, as you should be able to coolly demonstrate the falsehood of that stereotype.

Yes, the wider masses merely follow the opinions of others like sheep, but it always has been so.  It is not even simply the news media (and before them, the religious bodies – and in some societies those religious bodies still do hold that power), but even the school system largely propagates prejudice.  Maybe you regard the school system to propagate politically acceptable propaganda, but what the school systems do not teach is for people to question the opinions of those in power (including the opinions expressed in the media, or expressed by politicians).

The problem is that if we too then condemn people for bringing into the open views that they hold that you may be uncomfortable with, then we merely compound the notion that people must hold only the opinions of the common herd (except that in this case, you are dictating what you think the common herd should be thinking – but it still holds true that you refuse to allow dissent, or will at least openly rebuke people for voicing dissent).

As you say, there are some people who believe such things; but topics like this give people the opportunity to disabuse them of such prejudices; which
 cannot happen if you deprive people the opportunity to openly and honestly discuss their prejudices (even if they do make you uncomfortable).

but the discussing of the topic has been restricted because of the age of the poster!

and for the record, yes i apologised for my initial post because of his age. Not for what i said, you somewhat back me in to that corner because of a previous comment i made about a reply to one of Anastasia's questions

No, discussion of the topic has in no way been restricted because of his age – we have discussed the matter in a very constructive manner.

My comment was that if all else, one should at least make allowances for his age (insofar as understanding why he might have formed the opinion he did, not in neglecting to challenge that opinion); but personally, my attitude went further than that, and regarded that the opinion expressed should be treated with civility no matter what his age.  Your comment was to deny Tony the right to express his ideas, rather than to simply challenge his ideas.  It was that which I disagreed with, and would have done so no matter what age Tony was.  Maybe I should not have brought his age into it, because I believe Tony had the right to express genuinely held belief, even of he had been thrice his age.

I am a great believer in Voltaire's maxim: “I may disagree with what you have to say, but I shall defend, to the death, your right to say it”.

I am sorry if you felt that I was holding Anastasia at ransom over this – it certainly was not my intention, and Anastasia was certainly not at all in my mind when I made that response.

[paul.fr]

I am not sure what you mean by adult language, but I suspect it has more to do with the language of the school playground than with the tactful and considered response of a mature adult.  I do not consider that telling people they should not be allowed to express their honestly held opinions to be a mature adult response.

I think we did, for the most part, have an adult response, with, for the most part, adult language (by which I mean, language that was courteous but to the point).  I believe that the respect we showed Tony while disagreeing with his idea allowed Tony to, in a totally adult and mature way, reconsider his ideas without feeling he had to defend his ideas as a matter of honour.  I think it shows great credit to Tony that he did respond as he did.

No, i was not talking about school yard language. You will have, i hope, noticed that i do not use such language here or anywhere come to that. I see no need in swearing and think those that use such language in their everyday coversations use it to disguise their lack of intellect and to intimidate and bully people.
I meant and adult language where we have to pull no punches in our distaste for such opinions, no matter the persons age.

So that probably reaffirms why I have never gotten married, or become a parent.

well sort of! i would not reccomend marriage, but parenthood is a joy and the most wonderful thing.

Posting in order to generate replies is not uncommon, even for some of the science topics.  Many consider that it serves a useful purpose (within limits) to ensure a continuity of flow of the forum, and give others more confidence to post if they see lots of other people posting.

If a post is designed to ruffle a few feathers, and challenge orthodoxy, then I find nothing wrong with that.  Where a post is followed up by an arrogant refusal to see why the views the person puts forward will not work, then I do have a problem (and in some cases this does happen, but equally it is by no means universally the case).

yes, i notice this and have no problem with it in general. they can produce some great topics with equally great replies. But, i suspect topics like these are wholly designed to ruffle feathers and upset people. this is not fun or funny, and sometimes a arrogant reply is the intention. it gets other peoples back up and can quickly turn sour.

Firstly, what I meant by my comment was that a cool and calm debate about a particular stereotype should only reinforce that stereotype if that stereotype reflects an underlying reality.  If you believe the stereotype to be false (and most, in the broader application, are),  then you should have no fear in debating the matter, as you should be able to coolly demonstrate the falsehood of that stereotype.

Yes, the wider masses merely follow the opinions of others like sheep, but it always has been so.  It is not even simply the news media (and before them, the religious bodies – and in some societies those religious bodies still do hold that power), but even the school system largely propagates prejudice.  Maybe you regard the school system to propagate politically acceptable propaganda, but what the school systems do not teach is for people to question the opinions of those in power (including the opinions expressed in the media, or expressed by politicians).

The problem is that if we too then condemn people for bringing into the open views that they hold that you may be uncomfortable with, then we merely compound the notion that people must hold only the opinions of the common herd (except that in this case, you are dictating what you think the common herd should be thinking – but it still holds true that you refuse to allow dissent, or will at least openly rebuke people for voicing dissent).

Age dependant, the school system does encourage the challenges of ideas. Maybe when we were at school this was not so but it is now.

No, discussion of the topic has in no way been restricted because of his age – we have discussed the matter in a very constructive manner.

My comment was that if all else, one should at least make allowances for his age (insofar as understanding why he might have formed the opinion he did, not in neglecting to challenge that opinion); but personally, my attitude went further than that, and regarded that the opinion expressed should be treated with civility no matter what his age.  Your comment was to deny Tony the right to express his ideas, rather than to simply challenge his ideas.  It was that which I disagreed with, and would have done so no matter what age Tony was.  Maybe I should not have brought his age into it, because I believe Tony had the right to express genuinely held belief, even of he had been thrice his age.

I am a great believer in Voltaire's maxim: “I may disagree with what you have to say, but I shall defend, to the death, your right to say IT.

I am sorry if you felt that I was holding Anastasia at ransom over this – it certainly was not my intention, and Anastasia was certainly not at all in my mind when I made that response.

my own personal opinion is that this forum, or any similar science based forum, is not the place to express such opinions. by all means you are entitled to your opinions and beliefs but think carefully where and to whom you express them. if you intention is to cause hurt and offence then choose somewhere else.
the original post contained this text: "OK before you read any more if your are from Mexico,Canada, or South American then please stop reading for fear of hated remarks,thx."

to me this infers that the poster knew the responce such a question would generate, and for that reason i made the suggestion that "i would keep anymore bright ideas to yourself in future.
"

how is the weather down south  []  []

[paul.fr]

The main reason they cut it down is for farmland and food anyway.

Who are they?

are they the poor people who use the rain forrest to live off, cultivate farm land and grow food? or the loggers who cut down trees for a living?

what food could you offer the loggers to stop what they are doing?


i find this whole topic offensive and racist, maybe i am letting my own personal feeling cloud my judgement on this issue. but it makes me so mad.

asside from my regular job i also occasionally work as a door man and had reason to evict some people who were being offensive to a coloured couple because of their skin colour and ethnicity...needless to say this became heated and more than reasonable force had to be used to evict those people.

maybe i am still raw at the things the coloured couple were subjected to, and this is coming out in my posts here.

so this will be my last word on the subject.

[Karen W.]

The main reason they cut it down is for farmland and food anyway.

Who are they?

are they the poor people who use the rain forrest to live off, cultivate farm land and grow food? or the loggers who cut down trees for a living?

what food could you offer the loggers to stop what they are doing?


i find this whole topic offensive and racist, maybe i am letting my own personal feeling cloud my judgement on this issue. but it makes me so mad.

asside from my regular job i also occasionally work as a door man and had reason to evict some people who were being offensive to a coloured couple because of their skin colour and ethnicity...needless to say this became heated and more than reasonable force had to be used to evict those people.

maybe i am still raw at the things the coloured couple were subjected to, and this is coming out in my posts here.

so this will be my last word on the subject.

 I think  you were right and that was what was frustrating me and why I stepped out ..I hope that he was not actually thinking that way as he did apologise after rethinking what he said.. but I do share your concern as to what it seemed to me also. It was frightening to hear one so young post comments about moving and uprooting people without regards to their rights feelings culture etc.. I do agree with you on this count which is why I stepped back after.. I needed to cool off also..

[another_someone]

Who are they?

are they the poor people who use the rain forrest to live off, cultivate farm land and grow food? or the loggers who cut down trees for a living?

what food could you offer the loggers to stop what they are doing?

The two are intertwined.

My understanding is that logging itself can be done in a way that limits the damage to the forest at large - they can select individual trees without curring down whole swathes of forest, and without denuding the forest.

The problem is that the loggers cut roads through the forest, and those roads give access to farmers who do cut down whole swathes of the forest to plant fields of crop.

i find this whole topic offensive and racist, maybe i am letting my own personal feeling cloud my judgement on this issue. but it makes me so mad.

Nobody has mentioned race as such.  There might be a matter of generalisation of a people - some of it an inevitable consequence that none of us have actual personal experience of the environment we are talking about.