Also in the news

[davieG]

Just now, Dahnsouff said:

See no other option but for littering to be a capital offence, perhaps under the treason banner. 

The banner would get pulled down. 

[Suzie the Fox]

2 minutes ago, Alf Bentley said:

 

I don't wish to act the tartar, to offer a peppery or vinegary reply or to a-salt your opinion, Suzie.

Dijon is indeed mustard if you're making a mint and have the bread to be saucy. It has everything to satisfy a gentleman's relish and the sun to turn white to brown while you're stuffing yourself.

But would you not prefer dressing for a thousand islands, a salsa or a hollandaise adventure? If you're in a pickle, a week in Worcestershire or Mayo might be fun. Ketchup with you later. 

 

(Sorry. Ages since I've indulged in a mass-pun, in my defence.....)

 

Very impressive Alf. Well done, I’m just not that smart other than to come out with occasional childish one liners. Lol. 

[Alf Bentley]

4 minutes ago, Suzie the Fox said:

Very impressive Alf. Well done, I’m just not that smart other than to come out with occasional childish one liners. Lol. 

 

.....I'm just stupid enough to waste my time on much more extensive childishness!

[Angus Scott]

16 minutes ago, Dahnsouff said:

Time for another campaign

 

Perhaps a message on the players shirts would help?

[StanSP]

24 minutes ago, Strokes said:

That’s fair enough isn’t it?

Well if you're in poverty and you're having to find money to feed your children (when it could be given for free as per the campaign) so that you have money to afford other bills, is it fair? 

 

[Alf Bentley]

19 minutes ago, Dahnsouff said:

Time for another campaign

 

 

1 minute ago, Angus Scott said:

Perhaps a message on the players shirts would help?

 

"What a load of rubbish", perhaps? 

[Innovindil]

1 minute ago, StanSP said:

Well if you're in poverty and you're having to find money to feed your children (when it could be given for free as per the campaign) so that you have money to afford other bills, is it fair? 

 

Would be fair if I got free cash for food too. 

[Angus Scott]

1 minute ago, Alf Bentley said:

 

 

"What a load of rubbish", perhaps? 

Brilliant

[nnfox]

53 minutes ago, RoboFox said:

One of Marcus Rashford's heartfelt tweets this morning:

 

If I'm honest, I've always thought Rashford has been a bit overrated on the pitch, but his campaign off the pitch and how he uses his position and influence is admirable.

[Strokes]

37 minutes ago, RoboFox said:

I know yourself and a couple of other posters on here feel like you're fighting the good fight against the onslaught of raving lefties here on FT, but surely even you can see why this could be perceived as utterly lacking in empathy? 

How so if it is true?

As far as I have been aware, water cannot be cut off. How can anyone feel empathy for a fictional scenario.

Edited 16 June 2020 by Strokes

[Strokes]

16 minutes ago, StanSP said:

Well if you're in poverty and you're having to find money to feed your children (when it could be given for free as per the campaign) so that you have money to afford other bills, is it fair? 

 

You’ve lost me mate.

We all have bills even those on benefits. If they aren’t paid something has to happen to recover it surely.

[urban.spaceman]

[Alf Bentley]

1 hour ago, Cardiff_Fox said:

There's a good section on this border debate in Tim Marshall's Prisoners of Geography. It argues that China would gain very little given the sheer terrain of the Himalayas. 

 

Yes, I expect it's true there's little to be gained locally in the Himalayas. 

 

Sino-Indian tensions relate to wider power politics, I imagine. China being the dominant economic/political power in the region, with aspirations to expand that economic dominance and to become the No.1 global superpower....with India as a long-term rival for such power on every level, economic and political, regional and global.....but being at least a couple of decades behind (though with a faster-growing population and with nuclear weapons). Chinese-Indian rivalries might be a growing feature of coming years - let's just hope they keep a lid on it, given the scale of the mayhem they'd be capable of between them.

[Leicester_Loyal]

They'll be families who genuinely could use the help that this can provide, whilst they'll be others who spend £60 on the latest iPhone or Sky bundle instead of feeding their kids properly, so I'm torn on the issue. In the grand scheme of things it won't cost a lot (in terms of Government budgets), but once it's done they'll be calls for it to happen every summer holiday.

 

Food vouchers are definitely the way to go, rather than money btw, that ensures they'll have to be spent on food.

Edited 16 June 2020 by Leicester_Loyal

[StanSP]

37 minutes ago, Innovindil said:

Would be fair if I got free cash for food too. 

 

Depending on your income! 

 

22 minutes ago, Strokes said:

You’ve lost me mate.

We all have bills even those on benefits. If they aren’t paid something has to happen to recover it surely.

But if free school meals are taken away, that's extra expenditure a parent/family has to cope with, and therefore taken away from another part of that very small budget anyway. 

 

I get that something has to happen to recover it, but at what cost? 

[leicsmac]

4 hours ago, Benguin said:

Forgive me if I'm wrong about you but I'm sure we've had theological debates before. 

 

If we are just atoms in motion, how can a standard of morality exist objectively? Surely, without a moral law giver, morality can only be an internal framework for each person and one's views on what is right or wrong is only their opinion? 

 

Of course I don't believe this personally, morality is objective, it is written on our hearts by our creator and the only way to achieve equality is through the gospel of Jesus. Just curious how this can be founded without God? 

We have indeed, and it's good to be able to debate with someone possessing such considerable knowledge on the matter.

 

Personally, I think morality is indeed completely subjective, but I don't see why that makes it less important than if it were granted by some cosmic entity. Rather than "playing by the rules" in order to avoid some kind of damnation by a being that is remarkably ineffable when it comes to actual clarity regarding said rules (because it stands to reason that all we know of such a being is what we can interpret in our own very imperfect way and as such it will be fallible) we can "play by the rules" that we have invented as a species in order to prevent damnation in *this* life - because, even though I'm something of a cynic, I also believe that someone who does too many immoral acts will most often have a reckoning for it before the end of their lives because they will become the targets of too many people to avoid it. Not always, of course, but often.

 

And that leads into my next point: moral systems that humanity invents, like the ones we have now, have value because they help humanity as a whole survive. My own take is that what would be called "immoral" acts are largely borne out of fear and/or short term self interest, and those acts only serve to divide humanity into small competing groups when there are times it needs to be a cohesive whole. Thus, having a moral code that takes that pattern allows humanity to better achieve the objective that all species ever strive for - to continue to exist for as long as they can.

 

I don't see any difference in value between "subjective" moral codes that humanity invents and "objective" ones given by a cosmic entity because there is simply no evidence to suggest that following the same rules given by either ends any differently. (I know that's where the whole "faith" in an afterlife part comes in, but until empirical - or even theoretical - certified evidence of that arises I simply cannot buy it.

 

[Finnaldo]

Just now, Leicester_Loyal said:

They'll be families who genuinely could use the help that this can provide, whilst they'll be others who spend £60 on the latest iPhone and Sky bundle instead of feeding their kids properly, so I'm torn on the issue. In the grand scheme of things it won't cost a lot (in terms of Government budgets), but once it's done they'll be calls for it to happen every summer holiday.

 

Food vouchers are definitely the way to go, rather than money btw, that ensures they'll have to be spent on food.

The push is for vouchers/coupons so I think that’s fair enough, as you say it’s definitely spent on food so everyone on either side of the political spectrum. 
 

I think the majority would use it for proper use but kids shouldn’t suffer because of their parents. 

[StanSP]

3 minutes ago, Leicester_Loyal said:

They'll be families who genuinely could use the help that this can provide, whilst they'll be others who spend £60 on the latest iPhone or Sky bundle instead of feeding their kids properly, so I'm torn on the issue. In the grand scheme of things it won't cost a lot (in terms of Government budgets), but once it's done they'll be calls for it to happen every summer holiday.

 

Food vouchers are definitely the way to go, rather than money btw, that ensures they'll have to be spent on food.

Apparently there's been lots of issues of the electronic vouchers not working or not being downloadable. So there's needs to be an efficient system in place to begin with (agree vouchers is better than money). 

 

I think there are calls for it to continue this summer holiday mainly because schools have remained shut (for the majority). Usually vouchers would be given during term time but given that most kids haven't been at school, why can it not be extended in to summer holidays anyway? 

[Strokes]

3 minutes ago, StanSP said:

 

Depending on your income! 

 

But if free school meals are taken away, that's extra expenditure a parent/family has to cope with, and therefore taken away from another part of that very small budget anyway. 

 

I get that something has to happen to recover it, but at what cost? 

Right there is a key bit of information I’m missing then.

Whats the free school dinners bit please?

I know Rashford has been providing meals but I don’t really know the ins and the outs.

Edited 16 June 2020 by Strokes

[leicsmac]

29 minutes ago, Strokes said:

How so if it is true?

As far as I have been aware, water cannot be cut off. How can anyone feel empathy for a fictional scenario.

Clearly you've never watched the ending of Turner and Hooch.

[Aus Fox]

52 minutes ago, Angus Scott said:

Perhaps a message on the players shirts would help?

 

49 minutes ago, Alf Bentley said:

 

 

"What a load of rubbish", perhaps? 

 

[Dahnsouff]

See no other option but for littering to be a capital offence, perhaps under the treason banner. 

[Benguin]

7 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

We have indeed, and it's good to be able to debate with someone possessing such considerable knowledge on the matter.

 

Personally, I think morality is indeed completely subjective, but I don't see why that makes it less important than if it were granted by some cosmic entity. Rather than "playing by the rules" in order to avoid some kind of damnation by a being that is remarkably ineffable when it comes to actual clarity regarding said rules (because it stands to reason that all we know of such a being is what we can interpret in our own very imperfect way and as such it will be fallible) we can "play by the rules" that we have invented as a species in order to prevent damnation in *this* life - because, even though I'm something of a cynic, I also believe that someone who does too many immoral acts will most often have a reckoning for it before the end of their lives because they will become the targets of too many people to avoid it. Not always, of course, but often.

 

And that leads into my next point: moral systems that humanity invents, like the ones we have now, have value because they help humanity as a whole survive. My own take is that what would be called "immoral" acts are largely borne out of fear and/or short term self interest, and those acts only serve to divide humanity into small competing groups when there are times it needs to be a cohesive whole. Thus, having a moral code that takes that pattern allows humanity to better achieve the objective that all species ever strive for - to continue to exist for as long as they can.

 

I don't see any difference in value between "subjective" moral codes that humanity invents and "objective" ones given by a cosmic entity because there is simply no evidence to suggest that following the same rules given by either ends any differently. (I know that's where the whole "faith" in an afterlife part comes in, but until empirical - or even theoretical - certified evidence of that arises I simply cannot buy it.

 

For me it's important to have a foundation for morality in order to have a subjective opinion on what moral codes should make up a society. If we have no foundation then we can't make claims like murder is always wrong or slavery is always wrong, as wrong is a made up term to describe subjective feelings. Murder always being wrong would imply everyone should know it to be wrong hence objectivity. 

 

I am happy to conceed a creator is not needed for subjective morality and if there is no such thing as objective morality than, for this argument at least, I conceed. If however murder or racism is always wrong, hence objectively immoral, then there is no justification for that without God. 

 

Of course you can say that murder or racism is not useful for society or survival but to say it is objectively wrong (evil) is to steal from a theistic worldview.

 

That is the value, objective morality is what is written on the hearts of humanity and no matter how much we suppress this with sin, we are all aware, we are all culpable and we will all have to answer for it. Jesus surplants sin with salvation and then sanctification. We are intended to be pure and holy(objectively morally perfect) but we have free will to choose. 

[Benguin]

4 hours ago, Dahnsouff said:

Maybe at large is wrong, but within societal groups it could be possible for murder and/or slavery to benefit one societal group whilst the inverse is true of the other group who are the target of said actions. 

That's different from objective morality. Objective morality is what's right or wrong irregardless of opinions. You could argue that objective morality doesn't exist but it isn't logically coherent for objective morality to exist in an atheistic worldview. 

[Dahnsouff]

2 minutes ago, Benguin said:

That's different from objective morality. Objective morality is what's right or wrong irregardless of opinions. You could argue that objective morality doesn't exist but it isn't logically coherent for objective morality to exist in an atheistic worldview. 

Ok, bit above my paygrade so I will, with little sense of shame, back away from this conversation 

(I do have strong views in this area, but doubt my ability to communicate them would benefit the conversation)