silverfox

localgirlwithdreads, your argument seems to be the word is racist but not if black people use it. You haven't addressed some of the other points I've raised.

Thanks Admin

Harley

Dear admin, I've no problem with you amending the wording of my thread about the N-word in the drawing room if some people are finding it offensive (and perhaps being deterred from reading it). However could you please re-insert the word 'necessarily' as I think the sense has now been changed. As it stands it implies I'm questioning whether it is racist at all. If the amended wording were to read 'Is the N-word necessarily racist' it keeps my original sense of accepting it is racist but not (necessarily) always.

I understand some people have been offended by the title of this thread but the intention was to provoke discussion as to what is or isn't racism in the light of the accusions being banded about on the TLS/BBW thread. Hands up all those who watched 'The Wire' for example. Great series. In each episode the word 'nigger' must have been used at least two or three times. Let's say 50 million people have viewed a least one episode and heard the word used. Should the series have been banned because people find the word offensive? Should great literature which uses the word because the word was in common parlance at the time the book was written be censored and the word now removed because a modern audience finds it offensive. Or should the book be read with the original text and the reader sensible enough the acknowledge the conceptual and cultural mores of the time? Is the word non-offensive if used by a black person? Surely it can be used by black people to offend but how many white people would take them to task for it? What if there's a history of ethnic rivalry between black people and one uses it against another eg, a black flemish speaker against a black walloon speaker in Belgium; someone from the Cameroon against say a West Indian? I think Sean summed it up for me when he said it depends who says it and why. Leaving the word aside, how about inverted racism? What do you make of the following situation I witnessed outside the edt this summer? A young white woman and her white boyfriend were sitting on the benches outside the edt. A white middle aged man came out of the pub and stood by her and lit and started to smoke a cigarette. She made shoo-ing away gestures to waft away the smoke and told him to move (no please, just move). When he pointed out he was standing there becuase the cigarette extinguisher was on the wall and she was sitting right under it she gave him a mouthful of abuse. Okay, nothing wrong with that you might say, disgusting habit and she shouldn't be made to breathe his smoke (even though she was sitting under the extinguisher on the wall). About two minutes after he went back into the pub a black man came out, stood in the same place by the extinguisher, lit a fag and started smoking it. Yes, you've guessed it, she said nothing to him. What do we make of that story? She realised she was sitting in the wrong place or didn't want to challenge a black person?

When it comes to Europe, David Cameron is howling in the night The other 26 EU countries are not about to exhume the corpse of national sovereignty, says Simon Heffer. Interesting article in the Telegraph online about Cameron's Euro-cock-up. I didn't realise that the Lisbon Treaty sets out a procedure for member states to withdraw from the union for the first time. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/telegraph-view/6539877/When-it-comes-to-Europe-David-Cameron-is-howling-in-the-night.html

Reading your reponse legalbeagle it's now clear to me that you're coming at this from more of a considered legal angle. I see you're not ignoring the victim, rather accepting a crime/misdemeanour has occurred and now how does the state deal with the perpetrator. I agree the victim should not be involved in sentencing. The process should be objective and the crime measured against agreed sanctions. My social contract argument about citizens actively or tacitly giving power to the state in return for rights is a bit disingenuous. However, it is more of a philosophical matter than a practical legal question and I think there is a strong argument to say some actions are of such a gravity they justify individuals forfeiting certain rights in the same way as loss of liberty is justified. I agree Capital punishment doesn't work as a deterrent but question it costs more than a life sentence. However, I shouldn't have dismissed those studies you referred to but are unknown to me so readily. And yes, appeals are a necessary process in a civilised society. I also agree the eye for an eye principle shouldn't have any place in a civilised society. However, the attention-grabbing title of this post is meant to invite views as to how we do deal with what appears to be a growing menace of lawlessness and violence. There is a paradox in being a civilised society and granting rights which by virtue of those rights limits society's options in dealing with criminality and lawlessness. Like the issue of climate change some radical and uncomfortable decisions have to be confronted. I'm sure there are many things we agree upon legalbeagle. Perhaps I should set the record straight. I'm not pro-birching,not pro-slapping people in the face, not a tambourine shaking born again christian and I'm not anti-queuing for William Rose (use it myself but don't tell SeanMacGabhann).

Exactly Sean.

Answer: yes and no. Given the posts on the 'Does anyone else miss TLS's + Bigbadwolf's posts?' currently on its 9th page in the Lounge, I think we should take time to take stock about what is, and what isn't racist.

legalbeagle, I don't understand your post. LB said: "Capital punishment also ignores the point that there are two parties involved - the punisher and the prisoner..." No mention of victim here. LB said: "...We shouldn't inflict that sort of punishment on people because we don't want to say that the state considers it to be an acceptable way to treat its citizens however badly they have behaved...." As I understand citizenship, a citizen is granted certain rights from a state in return for certain responsibilities (a social contract). Wicked villains therefore forfeit this status. LB said: "...study after study has shown that capital punishment doesn't work as a deterrent and costs more than a life sentence..." Not sure what you mean here. If we assume a life sentence in England/Wales is around 15-20 years then if I pay a hangman ?10,000 to hang a murderer simple sums tell me the state has made a saving rather than keeping someone in prison for that time. If you're quoting American studies, where life may mean 35 years plus (and countless legal appeals) then the studies you refer to would seem even more ridiculous. Surely 50,000 volts costs less than bed and board for 35 years. That aside, the post is about birching not killing people. LB said: "...Plus I just don't get the logic. You are going to thrash someone who has thrashed someone to prove that thrashing someone is wrong?..." You do have a point here LB, it is illogical - except that wicked villians don't play by these nice rules of what makes sense, is logical, rational. Rather, from a birching point of view, it's more if you look at me like that you're dissing me and I'll stab you. Keef's concerns about a society that tortures people are concerns we should all share. However, is a humiliating thrashing on the backside as a deterrent any worse than keeping prisoners in Victorian-standard cells, using potties for toilets, slopping out, braving the showers, accepting the dominance of the daddy on the wing? Perhaps someone should start a new thread on what exactly torture is.

Ok, back to Sean's points. The EU,a single market, 500 million citzens, 27 member states with nine more queuing up to join. It is etimated to generate 30% of the gross world product. In effect, the EU offers its members a new model of economic and political collaboration that transcends the old alliances of cooperation between individual countries or blocks. The members willingly delegate their sovereignty in exchange for representation in the institutions. In return they benefit from a standardised system of laws which ensure the free movement of people, goods, services, and capital across borders and share common policies on trade, agriculture, fisheries and regional development. It has a limited role in foreign policy, enacts legislation in justice and home affairs and oversees environmental and climate change matters. It is a monster that is bigger than its individual parts and has been called a "postmodern superpower", ie it focuses on supranational law and economic and political rivalries rather than the old order of military and ideological rivalries between countries. Perhaps we should thank our lucky stars we are part of this new order, with all the benefits of trade it provides in the age of the global economy with China and the BRIC nations fast establishing a new economic order. However, I'm still not sure about it. Is the EU really a postmodern superpower or a large bureaucratic allusion that is simply papering over the cracks of old european rivalries with countries simply signing up to the club for what they can get out of it. Part of an answer may emerge from the global downturn which will show whether the structures are sound enough to hold the member states together. Enlargement The EU has not yet finished growing. More states are understandably queuing up to join to increase their standards of living, get Euro grants for huge infrastructure projects to transform their underdeveloped economies by building roads in Croatia and Turkey, putting tractors in fields presently tilled by peasants and agricultural subsidies galore. All this has to be paid for by the member states' contributions. The portions of the euro cake will be cut thinner and thinner and it will be generations before a return is made from the newer members. What are the benefits for Britain? While it is easy to see how Ireland has benefitted from membership with the country transformed over the past 20 years it's not as obvious to me how Britain has benefitted. Can any economists, financiers or business gurus on the forum provide a ball-park figure that says Britain has benefitted to the tune of ?xx trillion by joining, or would be ?xx worse off if it hadn't joined or even that we haven't benefitted yet but will do in the future. Should we have delegated our sovereignty? A country that can't make its own policies and own laws, or can but only if another body tells you it doesn't conflict with their policies and laws is little more than a eunuch on the world stage. Should this classical precept of political theory have been so readily given away for the EU shilling? Effectiveness Is the EU an effective body? The US is an homogenous body. Federalism works there despite differences between the states. It works in the sense that when the US makes trade, foreign policy, political and military decisions it does this on behalf of the US as a whole. The EU is a more disparate body with Germany and France dominant forces, a raft of ex-communist states and long-standing cultural and political rivalries. Block voting is used on major decisions where the consent of all 27 states isn't required or would be impractical. The bigger a country you are the more votes you get. The aim may be noble but does it really work in practice?

Ok, back to Sean's points. The EU,a single market, 500 million citzens, 27 member states with nine more queuing up to join. It is etimated to generate 30% of the gross world product. In effect, the EU offers its members a new model of economic and political collaboration that transcends the old alliances of cooperation between individual countries or blocks. The members willingly delegate their sovereignty in exchange for representation in the institutions. In return they benefit from a standardised system of laws which ensure the free movement of people, goods, services, and capital across borders and share common policies on trade, agriculture, fisheries and regional development. It has a limited role in foreign policy, enacts legislation in justice and home affairs and oversees environmental and climate change matters. It is a monster that is bigger than its individual parts and has been called a "postmodern superpower", ie it focuses on supranational law and economic and political rivalries rather than the old order of military and ideological rivalries between countries. Perhaps we should thank our lucky stars we are part of this new order, with all the benefits of trade it provides in the age of the global economy with China and the BRIC nations fast establishing a new economic order. However, I'm still not sure about it. Is the EU really a postmodern superpower or a large bureaucratic allusion that is simply papering over the cracks of old european rivalries with countries simply signing up to the club for what they can get out of it. Part of an answer may emerge from the global downturn which will show whether the structures are sound enough to hold the member states together. Enlargement The EU has not yet finished growing. More states are understandably queuing up to join to increase their standards of living, get Euro grants for huge infrastructure projects to transform their underdeveloped economies by building roads in Croatia and Turkey, putting tractors in fields presently tilled by peasants and agricultural subsidies galore. All this has to be paid for by the member states' contributions. The portions of the euro cake will be cut thinner and thinner and it will be generations before a return is made from the newer members. What are the benefits for Britain? While it is easy to see how Ireland has benefitted from membership with the country transformed over the past 20 years it's not as obvious to me how Britain has benefitted. Can any economists, financiers or business gurus on the forum provide a ball-park figure that says Britain has benefitted to the tune of ?xx trillion by joining, or would be ?xx worse off if it hadn't joined or even that we haven't benefitted yet but will do in the future. Should we have delegated our sovereignty? A country that can't make its own policies and own laws, or can but only if another body tells you it doesn't conflict with their policies and laws is little more than a eunuch on the world stage. Should this classical precept of political theory have been so readily given away for the EU shilling? Effectiveness Is the EU an effective body? The US is an homogenous body. Federalism works there despite differences between the states. It works in the sense that when the US makes trade, foreign policy, political and military decisions it does this on behalf of the US as a whole. The EU is a more disparate body with Germany and France dominant forces, a raft of ex-communist states and long-standing cultural and political rivalries. Block voting is used on major decisions where the consent of all 27 states isn't required or would be impractical. The bigger a country you are the more votes you get. The aim may be noble but does it really work in practice?

I've got something to do so will address your questions more fully later Sean. Briefly, I think it's the control and uniformity that bugs me. Our politicians deserve a kicking - it's healthy for democracy. But when I read about Europe telling us how many hours we should/shouldn't work, the lack of will to address the mess of the common agricultural policy because the likes of France are still agrarian economies but it'll still cost you ?xx million I think bugger off, who are you to tell us what to do?

I've got something to do so will address your questions more fully later Sean. Briefly, I think it's the control and uniformity that bugs me. Our politicians deserve a kicking - it's healthy for democracy. But when I read about Europe telling us how many hours we should/shouldn't work, the lack of will to address the mess of the common agricultural policy because the likes of France are still agrarian economies but it'll still cost you ?xx million I think bugger off, who are you to tell us what to do?

Yes, fascinating and I'm glad you started this thread because I'm really confused about this whole EU situation. I understand we need Europe for both economic and political reasons and can't meet the challenges of the global economy alone. However, there's still something of the 'little Englander' about me in that I worry about: - giving up sovereignty to Europe - allowing EU law to take precedence over British law - the fact that even our MEPs (mostly unknown names and politcally light-weight) appear to be more powerful than those in Parliament - a concern that unlike a homogeneous federal US, Europe is still divided along 19th century nation-state and cultural lines hampering agreement and resulting in dubious compromises Post financial crisis the country doesn't have the luxury of posteuring above its weight and influence but it disturbs me when I see how the EU bullied Ireland into a second referendum on the Lisbon Treaty. If the Conservatives do win the next election as expected I'm not sure there's much they can do except follow orders from Brussels - unless they manage to get hold of MEPs expenses claims which would probably cause a Europe-wide out cry and weaken the EU's legitimacy.

Yes, fascinating and I'm glad you started this thread because I'm really confused about this whole EU situation. I understand we need Europe for both economic and political reasons and can't meet the challenges of the global economy alone. However, there's still something of the 'little Englander' about me in that I worry about: - giving up sovereignty to Europe - allowing EU law to take precedence over British law - the fact that even our MEPs (mostly unknown names and politcally light-weight) appear to be more powerful than those in Parliament - a concern that unlike a homogeneous federal US, Europe is still divided along 19th century nation-state and cultural lines hampering agreement and resulting in dubious compromises Post financial crisis the country doesn't have the luxury of posteuring above its weight and influence but it disturbs me when I see how the EU bullied Ireland into a second referendum on the Lisbon Treaty. If the Conservatives do win the next election as expected I'm not sure there's much they can do except follow orders from Brussels - unless they manage to get hold of MEPs expenses claims which would probably cause a Europe-wide out cry and weaken the EU's legitimacy.

Should that be capisce? in the mafia sense or is there a certain lady you've taken a dislike to?

Sean said: "...That just isn't like for like comparison." As I understand it, BBW (and possibly TLS) said some unacceptable things to a handful of individuals. Huguenot has potentially insulted millions of adherents. If he has committed an offence here his 'crime' is worse than BBW's. But I'd qualify that by saying anyone who takes offence is being silly and I'm not picking on Huguenot here for what he said as such. It may have been a wind-up or he genuinely feels that way. Many people feel that way about religion. To me it doesn't matter. I just prefer people to look as if they've thought about the issue whether they believe in a God or not.

Huguenot said: "...If I'm so pathetically inadequate I need to abdicate responsibility for everyday decisions where can I turn?.... Well..." You've completely missed the point Huguenot. On the contrary, people who believe in God/Allah/Yahweh don't abdicate responsibility for everyday decisions but try (I emphasise try) to live a life where actions and decisions are framed with notions of morality and justice. (As do many non-believers.) I've been following the 'Does anyone else miss TLS's + Bigbadwolf's posts?' and the views that they should/should not have been banned for offensive posts. While your tongue-in-cheek post here doesn't cause me any offence, it could be said to be potentially more offensive than anything TLS or BDW have said. It also doesn't contribute anything to the question of whether there is/isn't a God.

Following Sue's cat story - when we first moved into our house there were a number of occasions when there was a pungent whiff of cat-pee at the top of our stairs that we couldn't explain (we'd decorated and replaced the previous occupants' carpets etc). Then, on a least two separate occasions my young daughter said she'd seen a white cat running up the stairs. Not sure what to make of it and there's probably a rational explanation.

Googolplex Following on from Yotta, above, the word Googolplex came up on last night's Horizon programme about blackholes. As in: "In a separate article, Page shows that the number of states in a black hole with a mass roughly equivalent to the Andromeda Galaxy is in the range of a googolplex." A googol is a number equal to 10 to the power of 100 (ie, a 1 with 100 zeros following it). Written out explicitly, 10000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000. A googolplex is the number 10 raised to the power of a googol of zeros. 1 googolplex =10 to the power of 10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000, 000,000,000,000,000 One googol is also presumed to be greater than the number of hydrogen atoms in the observable universe. Carl Sagan estimated that writing a googolplex in numerals (i.e., "10,000,000,000...") would be physically impossible, since doing so would require more space than the known universe occupies. Yet, much larger still is Graham's Number perhaps the largest natural number mathematicians actually ever talk about. (Edited as the posted page didn't reproduce the raised power symbols properly)

More impotent than omnipotent I'm afraid MP

I realise you're upset MP and I wasn't trying to be callous about the unfortunate situation. You raise an age old question about how, if a loving and benevolent God exists, He could permit such tragedy and suffering. I too find this a difficult question.

Yotta As in: "Mr Chiscolm sued Bank of America in Manhattan's federal court ... for "$1,784 billion trillion", in a complaint that boiled down to poor customer service". The actual number, 1,784 billion trillion, is equal to 1.784 multiplied by 10 to the 24th power, or 1,784 followed by 21 zeroes. Using the International System of Units, this number is called a Yotta. International System of Units Kilo (K) = 3 zeroes Mega (M) = 6 zeroes Giga (G) = 9 zeroes Tera (T) = 12 zeroes Peta (P) = 15 zeroes Exa (E) = 18 zeroes Zetta (Z) = 21 zeroes Yotta (Y) = 24 zeroes

If you're blaming God for this you must believe in Him