Cambridge is the most boring place in the UK
Duncan Harper
I saw the article on CEN (Cambridge Evening News) and young people find
Cambridge is the most boring place in the UK. Due to lack of niteclubs,
nothing to do after pubs close at 11PM, poor nightlife. I arranged with
that. I find this city, nightlife is dull.
Any ideas what we should improve it? I am studying at Nottingham Trent Uni
(I live in Cambridge ) and the nightlife in Nottingham are MUCH better than
this city!
Any suggest for that?
Cheers
Duncan
Robin Fairbairns
In article <01bd7b85$aa14d240$c6fb...@zg46.dial.pipex.com>,
i boggle[*].
i know nottingham has more night clubs. it also has a (far) better
bus service. it's also got a population 5 times larger than
cambridge. (or is it even more than that?)
perhaps the solution is to expand cambridge with another 400 000
people -- should be trivial.
[*] netiquette doesn't allow more :-)
--
Robin (the beetle must go) Fairbairns r...@cl.cam.ac.uk
U of Cambridge Computer Lab, Pembroke St, Cambridge CB2 3QG, UK
Home page: http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/users/rf/robin.html
Peter Thompson
Is the value of a city to be judged entirely on the number of nightclubs it
has?
Chris Rutter
> Is the value of a city to be judged entirely on the number of nightclubs it
> has?
For certain people, yes. :) Cambridge doesn't exactly win
out in those stakes, either.
--
Chris <ch...@fluff.org> ( http://www.fluff.org/widget )
Luke Diamand
Hi!
Duncan Harper wrote:
>I saw the article on CEN (Cambridge Evening News) and young people find
>Cambridge is the most boring place in the UK. Due to lack of niteclubs,
>nothing to do after pubs close at 11PM, poor nightlife. I arranged with
>that. I find this city, nightlife is dull.
>Any ideas what we should improve it? I am studying at Nottingham Trent Uni
>(I live in Cambridge ) and the nightlife in Nottingham are MUCH better than
>this city!
>Any suggest for that?
To state that Cambridge is the most boring place in the UK is absurd.
You could, for example, spend every evening of the week just going to
church services. IMO, this would be a lot more fun that going to some
noisy, sweaty nightclub.
Alternatively, you could spend your evenings improving your grammar.
Cheers!
Luke Diamand
Jon S Green
Dia...@btinternet.com (Luke Diamand) wrote:
> To state that Cambridge is the most boring place in the UK is absurd.
> You could, for example, spend every evening of the week just going to
> church services. IMO, this would be a lot more fun that going to some
> noisy, sweaty nightclub.
<rant>
With no disrespect, the vast majority of church services are tedium
given form. Hymns that could be played on the drones of a pair of
bagpipes without the aid of the chanter (and probably sound better with
it), or alternatively in the God-loves-all-of-us-even-the-little-puppies
happy-clappy mode; sermons which are either fire and brimstone (hardline
Protestant), all marketing and no product (Evangelical), meandering and
irrelevant (middle church) or sententious (High Church); lots of
stand-up-sit-down to keep the laity awake; and much muttering of ritual
words the congregation no longer think about. Very little to engage an
active and intelligent mind -- in fact more mind-numbing than daytime
TV.
There are exceptions to the general rule. College chaplaincies and
small liberal communities (without a "cult" agenda) can still offer a
genuine spirituality and intellectual engagement, but they _are_ still
very much the exceptions, IME. I can't conceive how anyone could call
the vast majority of services "fun". Duty, maybe, but not fun. I have
to wonder how many people go to them solely for the social afterwards.
</rant>
Jon
--
Work: jonsg(at)harlequin_co_uk <<CHANGE '_'s http://www.harlequin.co.uk/
Private: jonsg(at)pobox_com <<TO '.'s! http://www.pobox.com/~jonsg/
Ask for PGP key <*> Opinions my own ***Del. '.nojunk' from reply addr***
No junk email! http://www.pobox.com/~jonsg/junkmail.html ICQ 4500882
Gareth Challis
>I saw the article on CEN (Cambridge Evening News) and young people find
>Cambridge is the most boring place in the UK. Due to lack of niteclubs,
>nothing to do after pubs close at 11PM, poor nightlife. I arranged with
>that. I find this city, nightlife is dull.
>Any ideas what we should improve it? I am studying at Nottingham Trent Uni
>(I live in Cambridge ) and the nightlife in Nottingham are MUCH better than
>this city!
>Any suggest for that?
I've lived in Cambridge all of my life and have had no problems whatsoever
in having fun in the city at night. Why do you need a nightclub that stays
open until 6 in the morning just to have fun ? I'd rather eat a sweaty
marathon runners socks than go to one ...
I've also been to Nottingham on numerous occassions, and while there is much
more to do at night with a wide range of choice, it's not like Cambridge is
the same size of Nottingham with the same demand for entertainment.
If you can find a place where they can build you a nice, big nightclub in
the city centre, I'm sure you could find a financial backer. But then,
afterall, Cambridge wasn't exactly designed for the nightlife ...
Saying all that, as much as I like Cambridge, I'm leaving for the other side
of the world in 2 months ... but if I was to live in the UK, I'd still
prefer Cambridge to anywhere else that I've been to in this country.
G.
W.A. Sawford
On 11 May 1998, Luke Diamand wrote:
> To state that Cambridge is the most boring place in the UK is absurd.
> You could, for example, spend every evening of the week just going to
> church services. IMO, this would be a lot more fun that going to some
> noisy, sweaty nightclub.
Goodness, I bet the long winter evenings just fly by!
Wendy
**** El Wormio *** Local & International Maring a Speciality ***
-----++++++ Vindaloo Expert ++++++------
Dr Stuart McIntyre
Duncan Harper wrote:
> I saw the article on CEN (Cambridge Evening News) and young people find
Is there a single place in the whole world that the resident teenagers
don't think of as the most boring in their country? :)
Stuart
--
"Instead of trying to build newer and bigger weapons of
destruction, we should be thinking about getting more
use out of the ones we already have."
Hugo Tyson
In article <01bd7b85$aa14d240$c6fb...@zg46.dial.pipex.com> "Duncan Harper"
<dha...@dial.pipex.com> whinges:
> I saw the article on CEN (Cambridge Evening News) and young people find
^^
Is this a troll? Does he think CEN is a TV programme? ;-)
> Cambridge is the most boring place in the UK. Due to lack of niteclubs,
> nothing to do after pubs close at 11PM, poor nightlife. I arranged with
Get to the pub at 1930. Avail yourself generously of its facilities. By
2300 all you'll _want_ to do is go to sleep. No problem. ;-)
> that. I find this city, nightlife is dull.
> Any ideas what we should improve it? I am studying at Nottingham Trent Uni
> (I live in Cambridge ) and the nightlife in Nottingham are MUCH better than
> this city!
> Any suggest for that?
Sure, if, sorry, _when_ you graduate, stay in Nottingham. Until you
graduate, either stay in Nottingham in the holidays or enjoy the money you
save by living with your family - for this is likely the reason you live
somewhere you dislike.
So that's your personal tastes catered for. Next?
- Huge
Robert Brooksbank
Jon S Green wrote:
> With no disrespect, the vast majority of church services are tedium
> given form.
Personally, hearing someone being payed (and, if CE, sanctioned by the
government) to drone on about a set of myths and fairy tales as if they
had any significant factual basis is guaranteed to wind me up. So whilst
I don't enjoy church services I'd hardly describe them as tedious.
Rob
W.A. Sawford
On Mon, 11 May 1998, Robert Brooksbank wrote:
> Jon S Green wrote:
>
> > With no disrespect, the vast majority of church services are tedium
> > given form.
>
> Personally, hearing someone being payed (and, if CE, sanctioned by the
> government) to drone on about a set of myths and fairy tales as if they
> had any significant factual basis is guaranteed to wind me up. So whilst
>
Hear hear. Couldn't have put it better myself. And don't forget that the
Church is not only tied in with the government, but the monarchy too. All
rather neatly wrapped up wouldn't you say?
Tim Cutts
In article <3556EC...@sanger.ac.uk>,
Robert Brooksbank <r...@sanger.ac.uk> wrote:
>Jon S Green wrote:
>
>> With no disrespect, the vast majority of church services are tedium
>> given form.
>
>Personally, hearing someone being payed (and, if CE, sanctioned by the
>government) to drone on about a set of myths and fairy tales as if they
>had any significant factual basis is guaranteed to wind me up. So whilst
At the risk of inciting TGGD:
Just because they may not have any factual basis does not mean they
have no value. Few churches would state the entire Bible is fact.
They might say it is literal truth, but fact and truth are not the
same thing. Jesus' various parables are hardly 'fact', but many of
them do nevertheless teach people some valuable lessons in how to
behave that even non-Christians should agree with. Therefore, I would
say these contain a fairly universal form of truth.
And if you think preaching sermons is all clergy are paid for, you are
ignoring a very large portion of their work. Although I have never
needed it yet, personally it is good to know that my vicar is there to
talk to if necessary, and not necessarily about God.
Tim.
George Russell
I don't know the exact figure, but I think Cambridge's total population is around
100000, making it quite hard to support much nightlife (or anything else).
Rather than increasing Cambridge's population, I would have thought that the best
strategy would be to improve the public transport late at night to and from other
places in the area. For example, you cannot get by train from Bury or Norwich after
about 10:30pm (making theatre trips there impossible) and you cannot get from London
after 12:06pm (making clubbing there impossible).
Andrew Haley
Tim Cutts (tj...@mole.bio.cam.ac.uk) wrote:
: At the risk of inciting TGGD:
: Just because [religious beliefs] may not have any factual basis does
: not mean they have no value.
Oh, they certainly have a value. The trouble is, of course, it's
usually negative.
Andrew.
#970
George Hawes
tj...@mole.bio.cam.ac.uk (Tim Cutts) wrote:
> if you think preaching sermons is all clergy are paid for, you are
>ignoring a very large portion of their work.
Indeed. I'll never forget the evening when we were attempting to
look after a friend whose teenage son had died. The local vicar
came to call (at the friend's request), hung his heavy winter
cape on our (already well laden) coat hooks - causing said items
to detach themselves from the wall. He couldn't have found a
better way of lightening the atmosphere if he'd tried . . .
Divine intervention? Somehow I doubt it, but who can tell . .
G.
Robert Brooksbank
Tim Cutts wrote:
>
> Just because they may not have any factual basis does not mean they
> have no value. Few churches would state the entire Bible is fact.
> They might say it is literal truth, but fact and truth are not the
> same thing.
Try telling that to a judge. "Well your honour the facts may well differ
from what I said in my defence, however the facts and the truth are not
the same thing therefore I am not in contempt of court as I still told
the truth." I can't see it working.
>Jesus' various parables are hardly 'fact', but many of
> them do nevertheless teach people some valuable lessons in how to
> behave that even non-Christians should agree with. Therefore, I would
> say these contain a fairly universal form of truth.
I would agree that by and large the moral messages in parts of the bible
are valid. In my opinion one of the problems in modern society stems
from still trying to use the bible to get these messages across. It is
unrealistic to expect that people will still believe in the creation
myth, parthenogenesis in higher mammals, resurrection etc. It is
dangerous therefore to tag moral teachings to these beliefs. It is
understandable that when people dismiss the stories, often they dismiss
the associated teachings. Teaching of morality should be secular.
> And if you think preaching sermons is all clergy are paid for, you are
> ignoring a very large portion of their work. Although I have never
> needed it yet, personally it is good to know that my vicar is there to
> talk to if necessary, and not necessarily about God.
I am aware vicars do more than preach, they are still paid for the
preaching though. Many other secular support organizations exist which
would benefit from extra money if vicars stopped being paid for peddling
their beliefs.
Rob
Robert
On 9 May 1998 20:04:26 GMT, "Duncan Harper" <dha...@dial.pipex.com>
wrote:
>I saw the article on CEN (Cambridge Evening News) and young people find
>Cambridge is the most boring place in the UK. Due to lack of niteclubs,
I would have thought that someone whose definition of a boring city is
one without a night club would have insufficient brain cells to spell
'boring' any better than he spells 'night club'.
RE
Tim Cutts
In article <6j6ttj$nnl$1...@korai.cygnus.co.uk>,
Andrew Haley <a...@cygnus.remove.co.uk> wrote:
>Tim Cutts (tj...@mole.bio.cam.ac.uk) wrote:
>
>: At the risk of inciting TGGD:
>
>: not mean they have no value.
>
>usually negative.
You are, of course, entitled to that opinion. Personally, I find the
value to be positive.
Tim.
Colin Bell
"W.A. Sawford" <was...@cus.cam.ac.uk> writes:
> On Mon, 11 May 1998, Robert Brooksbank wrote:
>
> >
> > Personally, hearing someone being payed (and, if CE, sanctioned by the
> > government) to drone on about a set of myths and fairy tales as if they
> > had any significant factual basis is guaranteed to wind me up. So whilst
> >
> Hear hear. Couldn't have put it better myself. And don't forget that the
> Church is not only tied in with the government, but the monarchy too. All
> rather neatly wrapped up wouldn't you say?
Urban myth time again, I see. Only the Church of England [1] has links to
either the government or the monarchy, and these links are mostly nominal in
any case. The government (as an agent of the Queen), together with other
bodies (including various of the Cambridge colleges) have some control over
who is appointed to positions of authority, but almost invariably go along
with the CoE's recommendations, a number of Bishops sit in the House of
Lords and the CoE is obliged to conduct certain services as the established
church.
What winds _me_ up is firstly the common perception that the Church of England
is the only church in this country (it's the largest but IIRC doesn't have the
majority of believers) and secondly the prejudiced crap spouted by a lot of
people who quite obviously haven't a clue what they're talking about: for
example the two contributions above.
Colin
--
Colin Bell, c...@art.co.uk Advanced Rendering Technology
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
"You won't get pleasure from it on as many levels as I will."
Nick Wagg
Robert Brooksbank wrote:
>
> I would agree that by and large the moral messages in parts of the bible
> are valid. In my opinion one of the problems in modern society stems
> from still trying to use the bible to get these messages across. It is
> unrealistic to expect that people will still believe in the creation
> myth, parthenogenesis in higher mammals, resurrection etc. It is
> dangerous therefore to tag moral teachings to these beliefs. It is
> understandable that when people dismiss the stories, often they dismiss
> the associated teachings. Teaching of morality should be secular.
The creation story is useful, not so much for teaching HOW and WHEN
but in WHY and WHO. As for parthenogenesis - well the virgin birth
involved the birth of a male, whereas I thought that parthenogenesis
can only give rise to females.
Anyway, why shouldn't an omnipotent being draw attention to his son
and himself by marking the son's arrival on this earth and departure
(at least in bodily form) in a spectacular way - just as human parents
do.
While our legal system is not perfect it has served its purpose for
centuries and has proved to be considerably more enlightened than
many others. It is founded largely on biblical teaching.
> I am aware vicars do more than preach, they are still paid for the
> preaching though. Many other secular support organizations exist which
> would benefit from extra money if vicars stopped being paid for
> peddling their beliefs.
Biblically speaking, the prime purpose of a minister (useful non-
denominational term) is to preach. Also biblically speaking, the
recommended level of giving for a believer is 10% of income (a tithe).
Few enough give that amount but the total would be even less if there
were no such justification. Secular support organisations might just
find themselves receiving less, rather than more.
--
Nick Wagg <>< (mailto:ni...@lsl.co.uk) Laser-Scan Ltd,
Senior Software Engineer Science Park, Milton Rd,
Tel: +44(0)1223 420414 (ext 213) Cambridge, CB4 4FY, UK.
Fax: +44(0)1223 420044 http://www.lsl.co.uk/
Opinions expressed are attributable to me, not my employer.
Nick Wagg
Never mind places as far afield as Bury or Norwich, if public
transport to and from the villages within a 10 mile radius of
Cambridge were improved, there would be considerably more interest
in the city itself.
Mark Baker
In article <ncmvhrc...@perot.art.co.uk>,
Colin Bell <c...@art.co.uk> writes:
>> > Personally, hearing someone being payed (and, if CE, sanctioned by the
>> > government) to drone on about a set of myths and fairy tales as if they
>> > had any significant factual basis is guaranteed to wind me up. So whilst
>> >
>> Hear hear. Couldn't have put it better myself. And don't forget that the
>> Church is not only tied in with the government, but the monarchy too. All
>> rather neatly wrapped up wouldn't you say?
> majority of believers) and secondly the prejudiced crap spouted by a lot of
> people who quite obviously haven't a clue what they're talking about: for
> example the two contributions above.
In what way are either of those false? (assuming you should read "CofE" for
"Church" in the second one, which is fairly obvious from the context). I'm
not saying they aren't prejudiced, but I don't see how you can claim the
authors don't know what they are talking about.
All Robert said is that priests are paid (generally true), that the CofE is
sanctioned by the government (true: he didn't specify any details, so
whether he knows the details of the relationship with the government is
irrelevant), that they drone on (not always true, of course, but I don't
think anyone reading it would consider it to be a statement of fact; he was
recounting his experiences and presumably not lying about them), that there
is little factual basis for church teachings (there is almost none apart
from the bible itself) and that it's guaranteed to wind him up (which
obviously he knows better than anyone else!). Wendy merely added that the
monarchy is also involved with the church (true).
Al Grant
Nick Wagg wrote:
> Never mind places as far afield as Bury or Norwich, if public
> transport to and from the villages within a 10 mile radius of
> Cambridge were improved, there would be considerably more interest
> in the city itself.
But who'd want to run a late night public transport service?
I have had to come back late from London by train a few times, there
were fights, vomiting, passengers being intimidated etc. And at least
then the driver was protected from harassment. It only takes a
minority who do this kind of thing before firstly, the rest of the
public
will stay away from it and secondly, the bus drivers will refuse to
drive it.
George Russell
> But who'd want to run a late night public transport service?
can help it) but it's not that bad, and would be better if it wasn't so crowded.
It's no worse than the night buses which run from Trafalgar Square to almost all parts
of London (which I have used a lot in my time; I did my PhD in London and wrote most
of it at about 2am). An hourly bus from London to Cambridge from 1am to 5am would
be wonderful, and judging by the hordes who use the last trains might even make a profit. There are a few places around London (EG Croydon and Reading) lucky enough
to have an all-night train service, but there there are other reasons (EG nearby airports).
Hugo Tyson
In article <355715...@lsl.co.uk> Nick Wagg <ni...@lsl.co.uk> writes:
> Robert Brooksbank wrote:
> The creation story is useful, not so much for teaching HOW and WHEN
> but in WHY and WHO.
Doesn't work though does it. Unless you can give me an answer that I might
believe to WHY? and WHO?
> Anyway, why shouldn't an omnipotent being draw attention to his son and
> himself by marking the son's arrival on this earth and departure in a
> spectacular way - just as human parents do.
Because, like the fuss real parents make, actually their selfish blathering
just annoys everyone else?
- Huge
Geoff Gibbs
In article <01bd7b85$aa14d240$c6fb...@zg46.dial.pipex.com>,
"Duncan Harper" <dha...@dial.pipex.com> writes:
> I saw the article on CEN (Cambridge Evening News) and young people find
> Cambridge is the most boring place in the UK.
I thought the whole point of having students about was that they
organised all sorts of entertainment, from amateur dramatics to hiring
popular beat combos.
I have to say that having moved here from Harrow, I was impressed by
the amount of kulcha on offer here given that Cambridge is half the
size, (100,000 v 250,000ish).
Geoff Gibbs
--
UK-Human Genome Mapping Project-Resource Centre,
Hinxton, Cambridge, CB10 1SB, UK
Tel: +44 1223 494530 Fax: +44 1223 494512 E-mail: G.G...@hgmp.mrc.ac.uk
Andrew Haley
Al Grant (ag...@cam.ac.uk) wrote:
: Nick Wagg wrote:
: > Never mind places as far afield as Bury or Norwich, if public
: > transport to and from the villages within a 10 mile radius of
: > Cambridge were improved, there would be considerably more interest
: > in the city itself.
: But who'd want to run a late night public transport service?
: I have had to come back late from London by train a few times, there
: were fights, vomiting, passengers being intimidated etc.
As an occasional user of the late train, I don't think this is
typical. Sure, some people are sometimes the worse for wear, but I've
never seen anything really nasty.
Andrew.
Diana Galletly
In article <6j796q$9k3$1...@korai.cygnus.co.uk>,
I have. Several times. So much so once that we went to complain to the
ticket-inspector, who wasn't interested.
--
+ Diana Galletly <dag...@eng.cam.ac.uk> <gall...@mat.ensmp.fr> +
+ WWW: http://earthquake.eng.cam.ac.uk/~galletly +
+ `Behind every gifted woman there's often a rather talented cat' +
Dr Stuart McIntyre
Nick Wagg wrote:
> While our legal system is not perfect it has served its purpose for
> centuries and has proved to be considerably more enlightened than
> many others. It is founded largely on biblical teaching.
I think it is mainly enlightened because it has thrown off the
shakles of it's original feudal/religious roots somewhat sooner
and faster than other contries!
The medieval law system, as "founded largely on bible teaching"
was anything but fair; it basically had a slave underclass!
I would have said that the "enlighetend" state of our legal system
is due to a series of social changes which have moulded the 'divine
right' feudal laws into modern, liberal ones.
This reflects what I see as a general correlation between
religious interference in laws, and bad laws.
Christian Mayne
Most people seem to shout about the lack of nightclubs, but Cambridge is
actually quite well musically catered for considering its size, if you look
about abit:
+ Commercial dance : Fifth Avenue
+ 60s, 70 & 80s - Chicagos
+ Dance / R&B - The Fez & Po Na Na
+ Indie / grunge / more leftfield stuff - Route 66
+ Various throughout the week including reggae / indie / house - Q club.
All the above places are open until at least 1 or 2 (except po na na I
think) most nights. You've then got the Junction which puts on later stuff
(I'm not know how often). At the weekends London is just an hour away -
When I go clubbing on Saturdays (Blow up at The Wag - superb!) I leave the
club at six, stagger across to Kings Cross, have a burger and catch an
early morning train back.
I know a lot of people won't go to 5th / Chicagos / Route 66 / Q (delete as
applicable) because the club just isn't trendy 'enough', in which case it's
probably time to concede that Cambridge is never likely to be 'trendy'
enough and move onwards.
And let's be completely honest here - surely there's more to do at night
than go to nightclubs if you look about abit - I've jotted a few notes:
+ We've got a multiplex cinema and an 'arthouse' cinema so no complaints
there (?)
+ Several late night cafes (Clowns 2 used to open until 1am and was quite a
nice place to relax - not sure if that's around still)
+ There are plans to open another cinema / bowling alley on the cattle
market - I don't know how far this has got....
+ Swimming pools are a problem in my book - I'd like to find a pool that
opens late locally for the relaxing evening swim (which doen't involve
stripping naked and climbing over a barbed wire fence ;-) ) - Bottisham
manages 10pm two night a week. The 'leisure pool' can't be that far away
now...
+ Late night licensed premises other than nightclubs are a problem
everywhere I think
+ Kelsey Kerridge - not sure what time this is open til
+ Live music - corn exchange, junction, Boat Race, folk clubs modern jazz
club etc. etc. - Not huge names but we've had The Charlatans, James, Paul
Weller and Blur over the last couple of years - all top bands in my book.
+ Countless restaurants
I'd be interested to know what people do in other towns at night that
hasn't been mentioned here. On balance, I think it all boils down to
closed minded students who wish to be spoon fed a diet of 'Mixmag' and Paul
Oakenfold and have no life other than what they're told to have by their
peers. My opinion only.....
Christian
--
http://members.aol.com/PopFiction
http://members.aol.com/MayneC
Gareth Challis <gar...@zebster.com> wrote in article
<6j6hsa$hlp$1...@plug.news.pipex.net>...
> >I saw the article on CEN (Cambridge Evening News) and young people find
> >Cambridge is the most boring place in the UK. Due to lack of niteclubs,
> >nothing to do after pubs close at 11PM, poor nightlife. I arranged with
> >that. I find this city, nightlife is dull.
> >Any ideas what we should improve it? I am studying at Nottingham Trent
Uni
> >(I live in Cambridge ) and the nightlife in Nottingham are MUCH better
than
> >this city!
> >Any suggest for that?
>
>
Colin Bell
mba...@chiark.greenend.org.uk (Mark Baker) writes:
> All Robert said is that priests are paid (generally true), that the CofE is
> sanctioned by the government (true: he didn't specify any details, so
> whether he knows the details of the relationship with the government is
> irrelevant), that they drone on (not always true, of course, but I don't
> think anyone reading it would consider it to be a statement of fact; he was
> recounting his experiences and presumably not lying about them), that there
> is little factual basis for church teachings (there is almost none apart
> from the bible itself) and that it's guaranteed to wind him up (which
> obviously he knows better than anyone else!). Wendy merely added that the
> monarchy is also involved with the church (true).
This is spin-doctoring of the first degree and I do not see any point in
justifying it with an answer.
Dave Goode
Robert Brooksbank wrote in message <355706...@sanger.ac.uk>...
>I am aware vicars do more than preach, they are still paid for the
>preaching though. Many other secular support organizations exist which
>would benefit from extra money if vicars stopped being paid for peddling
>their beliefs.
Ah, but you forget that CofE clergy are paid by the CofE out of investment
funds and laity collections. You pay nothing for them so you're not in a
position to complain at them being paid. If you think secular organisations
are underfunded why don't you stick your hand in your pocket and give them
some of yours?
Dave
--
Dave Goode
City of Cambridge, England
remove the 'x's from my
return address to reply
Home Page and Electronic CV available at:
http://www.biosys.net/Dave.G/
Andrew Haley
Diana Galletly (dag...@eng.cam.ac.uk) wrote:
: In article <6j796q$9k3$1...@korai.cygnus.co.uk>,
: Andrew Haley <a...@cygnus.remove.co.uk> wrote:
: >As an occasional user of the late train, I don't think [heavy
: >scenes on late night trains] is typical. Sure, some people are
: >sometimes the worse for wear, but I've never seen anything really
: >nasty.
: I have. Several times. So much so once that we went to complain to the
: ticket-inspector, who wasn't interested.
But surely if it was really nasty you'd have to contact the police
even if the ticket inspector wasn't interested. Did you?
Andrew.
Andrew Haley
Colin Bell (c...@art.co.uk) wrote:
: Only the Church of England [1] has links to either the government or
: the monarchy, and these links are mostly nominal in any case.
And then admitted that:
: a number of Bishops sit in the House of Lords
which is certainly not "nominal": this gives the established church a
public platform and votes in the upper house. Perhaps when votes for
hereditary peers are abolished the government might turn their
attention to this. In exchange for this loss, the Church of England
might then be allowed to choose their own archbishops.
Andrew.
Richard Meredith
In article <6j5710$rrt$1...@inkvine.wincoll.ac.uk>, ch...@fluff.org (Chris
Rutter) wrote:
> > Is the value of a city to be judged entirely on the number of
> > nightclubs it
> > has?
>
> For certain people, yes. :) Cambridge doesn't exactly win
> out in those stakes, either.
For others the value of a city varies inversely to the number of
nightclubs..
----------------------------------------------------------------------
This is cam.misc. Reality is at fault - do not adjust your newsreader.
Andrew Haley
Jonathan Larmour (jlar...@cygnus.remove.co.uk) wrote:
: In article <6j7eme$f69$3...@korai.cygnus.co.uk>,
: Andrew Haley <a...@cygnus.remove.co.uk> wrote:
: >[crb said:]
: >: a number of Bishops sit in the House of Lords
: >
: >which is certainly not "nominal": this gives the established church a
: >public platform and votes in the upper house. Perhaps when votes for
: >hereditary peers are abolished the government might turn their
: >attention to this.
: You haven't been keeping up with the news then :-). They're not waiting
: at all - they've already asked.
Great news! I haven't been keeping up with British news as I've been
abroad.
However, there seems to be a major downside to this reform: the plan
to add representatives from other religions. The Cabinet believe that
"it is unacceptable that there are no representatives of Roman
Catholicism, Methodism, Judaism, Islam, or Hinduism in the Lords": I
belive that none of them should be there, as it apparently gives
religious folks more representation in Parliament than the
non-religious.
Andrew.
Jonathan Larmour
In article <6j7eme$f69$3...@korai.cygnus.co.uk>,
Andrew Haley <a...@cygnus.remove.co.uk> wrote:
>[crb said:]
>: a number of Bishops sit in the House of Lords
>
>which is certainly not "nominal": this gives the established church a
>public platform and votes in the upper house. Perhaps when votes for
>hereditary peers are abolished the government might turn their
>attention to this.
You haven't been keeping up with the news then :-). They're not waiting
at all - they've already asked. Have a peep at:
(yes I know my account is in there, and no I don't care :).
Jonathan L.
--
Cygnus Solutions, 35 Cambridge Place, Cambridge, UK. Tel: +44 (1223) 728762
"It is impossible to enjoy idling thoroughly unless||Home e-mail: jifl @
one has plenty of work to do - Jerome K. Jerome" || jifvik.demon.co.uk
Help fight spam! http://spam.abuse.net/ These opinions are all my own fault
Colin Bell
a...@cygnus.remove.co.uk (Andrew Haley) writes:
> Colin Bell (c...@art.co.uk) wrote:
>
> : Only the Church of England [1] has links to either the government or
> : the monarchy, and these links are mostly nominal in any case.
>
> And then admitted that:
>
> : a number of Bishops sit in the House of Lords
>
> which is certainly not "nominal"
... which is why I said _mostly_.
> ... In exchange for this loss, the Church of England
> might then be allowed to choose their own archbishops.
In practice they are anyway.
For the remaining pedants about you, the omitted footnote should have read:
"[1] And possibly the Church of Scotland as well."
Colin
--
Colin Bell, c...@art.co.uk Advanced Rendering Technology
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
"I won't have any aggressive condiment passing in this house."
Chris Rutter
>> For certain people, yes. :) Cambridge doesn't exactly win
>> out in those stakes, either.
> For others the value of a city varies inversely to the number of
> nightclubs..
Precisely. At least perhaps Cambridge strikes something of
a medium by having the Junction miles out of town. ;)
--
Chris <ch...@fluff.org> ( http://www.fluff.org/widget )
Mark Goodge
> It is
>unrealistic to expect that people will still believe in the creation
>myth, parthenogenesis in higher mammals, resurrection etc.
Given that many people do, in fact, believe many of these, I don't
think it's "unrealistic" at all.
In facrt, I would say that the majority of people believe at least one
thing that most other people would dismiss as nonsense. Astrology,
UFOs, crop circles and ghosts are a few that spring to mind. Compared
to some of these, Christianity is postively brim-full of rationality.
Mark
--
Visit Mark's World at http://www.good-stuff.co.uk/mark/
Dom
In article <01bd7d04$ddf05be0$e601...@UKP03094.logica.co.uk>,
"Christian Mayne" <cma...@bcs.org.uk.remove.last.four.words> wrote:
>Most people seem to shout about the lack of nightclubs, but Cambridge is
>actually quite well musically catered for considering its size, if you look
>about abit:
You don't understand, There Aren't Any Decent Nightclubs In Cambridge
Because The Evil University Wants To Stop Young Townspeople Enjoying
Themselves And It's Alright For The Hoighty-Toity Students With Their
Balls And Stuff. Once you accept this simple fact then the debate
becomes a lot easier.
>+ Commercial dance : Fifth Avenue
>+ 60s, 70 & 80s - Chicagos
>+ Dance / R&B - The Fez & Po Na Na
>+ Indie / grunge / more leftfield stuff - Route 66
>+ Various throughout the week including reggae / indie / house - Q club.
Not to mention the Devonshire for reggae, dub, etc. Open til 12 at
weekends (dunno about weekdays; last I talked to Charlie he was after
a weekday licence).
And then there are the unlicensed places which offer nasty over-priced
lager and the same tape of the Gipsy Kings etc. every time. Allegedly.
>I know a lot of people won't go to 5th / Chicagos / Route 66 / Q (delete as
>applicable) because the club just isn't trendy 'enough', in which case it's
And even more won't go because the clubs are simply terrible.
Occam's Razor
>Any ideas what we should improve it? I am studying at Nottingham Trent Uni
>(I live in Cambridge ) and the nightlife in Nottingham are MUCH better than
>this city!
>Any suggest for that?
Don't see why it should need improving. You don't like it here for
student nightlife purposes but you went to Nottingham so that's fine;
meanwhile, those of us who moved here because of the other (perhaps
less airheaded) forms of culture that Cambridge offers instead, like
it just the way it is, so we'll stay here - which is fine too. So
where's the problem ? Places are different, people are different - so
what ? As long as everyone is free to move to somewhere that suits
them.
Occam's Razor
On Mon, 11 May 1998 12:44:25 +0100, "W.A. Sawford"
<was...@cus.cam.ac.uk> wrote:
>On 11 May 1998, Luke Diamand wrote:
>
>> To state that Cambridge is the most boring place in the UK is absurd.
>> You could, for example, spend every evening of the week just going to
>> church services.
>
>Goodness, I bet the long winter evenings just fly by!
>
>Wendy
Sarcasm is cheap. Personally, I wouldn't be thrilled by a week of
services either, but the point he makes is that everyone is different.
In this he is being far less arrogant than the original poster, who
thinks that not only does he personally like nightclubs, but that
everyone should, and that Cambridge should be reorganised to this end.
At least our churchgoing friend isn't proposing that the number of
churches is the only index of how interesting Cambridge is, or that we
should "do something" to increase the opportunities for churchgoing in
Nottingham. Therefore, in my book, he's being less of a prat than the
man who started this item.
Occam's Razor
>On 11 May 1998, Luke Diamand wrote:
>
>> To state that Cambridge is the most boring place in the UK is absurd.
>> You could, for example, spend every evening of the week just going to
>> church services.
>
>Goodness, I bet the long winter evenings just fly by!
>
>Wendy
> Sarcasm is cheap. Personally, I wouldn't be thrilled by a week of services either,
> but the point he makes is that everyone is different.
... or, of course, he's being sarcastic himself. It's so hard to
tell. Anyway, I stick to my point either way. I resent being told
"we should something" [sic] by some tosser who thinks tedious British
nightclubs are the only forms of cultural life. The bars of the
Olympic Village and Barceloneta wharf in Barcelona are much better for
staying up till 6 am than yet another dreary self-obsessed attempt to
emulate so-called trendsetting Mancunian clubbing anyway.
Bah, humbug.
Matthew Bloch
In message <Pine.SOL.3.96.980511...@ursa.cus.cam.ac.uk>
"W.A. Sawford" <was...@cus.cam.ac.uk> wrote:
> On Mon, 11 May 1998, Robert Brooksbank wrote:
>
> > Jon S Green wrote:
> >
> > > With no disrespect, the vast majority of church services are tedium
> > > given form.
> >
> > Personally, hearing someone being payed (and, if CE, sanctioned by the
> > government) to drone on about a set of myths and fairy tales as if they
> > had any significant factual basis is guaranteed to wind me up. So whilst
Wow! I'm impressed with this already; after only eight follow-ups, we've got
a spelling /and/ a religion thread! cam.misc forever, that's what I say!
--
Matthew ( http://www.soup-kitchen.demon.co.uk/ )
Yoble
>
> Tim Cutts wrote:
> >
> > Just because they may not have any factual basis does not mean they
> > have no value. Few churches would state the entire Bible is fact.
> > They might say it is literal truth, but fact and truth are not the
> > same thing.
>
> Try telling that to a judge. "Well your honour the facts may well differ
> from what I said in my defence, however the facts and the truth are not
> the same thing therefore I am not in contempt of court as I still told
> the truth." I can't see it working.
Everyone seems to be assuming that the basis for an apprehension of
morality lies in derivative logic. The underlying motivation for
constructing a personal ethos is emotional. Some of us edit, amplify and
reinforce this ethos through reason, others grasp intuitive truths
through personal identification with storytelling. This does not
(necessarily) mean that they are intellectually unsophisticated. People
vary.
Yoble
Pete Cockerell
I find the tenor of the article below very disturbing, and not just because
it's written in an unfamiliar form of English (heaven knows our
undergraduates have quite enough on their plates without having to worry
about which preposition to use or how to make a subject and verb agree[1]).
No, what worries me is that nowhere is there a mention of East Anglia's
premier nitespot, The Junction. Venue of "Up Your Junction"! Hosted by Will
"Laugh at my crap jokes about American politics you humorless English
faggots" Durst! Showcase of a groundbreaking hand-held Anglia TV camera shot
straight between my friend Debbie's legs! Surely The Junction is still the
epicentre of Cambridge Nyteleif?
As it happened, Will Durst was on a local radio phone-in show last New
Year's Eve, and I called in to ask if he'd gotten over the experience yet.
He said he was still in therapy over it. He also reckoned that he went down
so badly because the show was recorded around the time of the Gulf War, and
there was a lot of anti-American sentiment from the audience. Uh huh. I told
him it was probably because he didn't have enough jokes about tits 'n' bums.
(Jo Brand didn't have any problems with the crowd. I rest my case.)
Cheers,
Pete, one of whose last concerts in Cambridge was Fields of Nephilim at the
Corn Exchange, recent bijou gothette acquaintance perched on my shoulders
for most of Dawnrazor. Very floury.
[1] And I speak as one who was once, quite liderally, castigated by H Tyson
for using 'different to' instead of 'different from' in some poxy ADFS
manual. Now of course I've been polluted by 'different than'.
--
Pete Cockerell
California, USA
<http://www.best.com/~petec>
Duncan Harper wrote:
> I saw the article on CEN (Cambridge Evening News) and young people find
> Cambridge is the most boring place in the UK. Due to lack of niteclubs,
> nothing to do after pubs close at 11PM, poor nightlife. I arranged with
> that. I find this city, nightlife is dull.
George Hawes
Chris Rutter <ch...@fluff.org> wrote:
> At least perhaps Cambridge strikes something of
>a medium by having the Junction miles out of town. ;)
Miles out of town? Its a comfortable 15 minute walk from the
town centre . . .
G.
George Hawes
Colin Bell <c...@art.co.uk> wrote:
>a...@cygnus.remove.co.uk (Andrew Haley) writes:
>> ... In exchange for this loss, the Church of England
>> might then be allowed to choose their own archbishops.
>In practice they are anyway.
IIRC this was certainly not the case on at least one occasion
during the Thatcher years . . .
OTOH I do find the intollerant tendency of the anti-church views
in this thread rather disturbing . . .
George
(noted, as ever, for tolerance and reason . . )
Robin Fairbairns
In article <memo.199805...@rmeredith.compulink.co.uk>,
Richard Meredith <rmer...@cix.co.uk> wrote:
>In article <6j5710$rrt$1...@inkvine.wincoll.ac.uk>, ch...@fluff.org (Chris
>Rutter) wrote:
>> > Is the value of a city to be judged entirely on the number of
>> > nightclubs it
>> > has?
>>
>> out in those stakes, either.
>
>For others the value of a city varies inversely to the number of
>nightclubs..
when i saw the evening nuisance poster about this `news' item, i
resisted the urge to deface it with "city finds students boring"...
i have (until now) resisted the temptation to post this silliness for
fear that i might be in a minority of one in having this inverse
estimation of a city :-)
--
I live in the crowd of jollity, not so much to enjoy company as to shun
myself. -- Samuel Johnson
Christian Mayne
Dom <d...@i-cubed.co.uk> wrote in article
<6j7hgd$aan$1...@shiny.i-cubed.co.uk>...
> "Christian Mayne" <cma...@bcs.org.uk.remove.last.four.words> wrote:
>
> >I know a lot of people won't go to 5th / Chicagos / Route 66 / Q (delete
as
> >applicable) because the club just isn't trendy 'enough', in which case
it's
>
> And even more won't go because the clubs are simply terrible.
>
It seems to me that perhaps you're not the 'club' type - In what way are
the clubs in Cambridge any different from the clubs which exist in every
medium size city throughout the country? When people talk about 'decent'
clubs. they talk about those in London, Nottingham or Manchester. Look at
a city comparable to Cambridge and then make a judgement.
I remember you talking about (apologies if it wasn't you ;-) ) The Depot
and claiming it would be a 'decent' club, but didn't explain how it would
be any different from De Niros or Fifth Avenue.
So enlighten me, what to the people in Cambridge *really* want to do in the
evening, and what do they *really* want from a nightclub?
Keir Finlow-Bates
Blah blah religion blah churches blah blah nightclubs blah bad
spelling.
Hmm, to go by cm.misc, perhaps Cambridge is the most boring place in
the UK.
Keir
Steve
Must be about time for Cambridge to have some city centre riots,
bit of looting and pillaging would certainly give something
more to natter about.
Steve
--
Al Grant
Andrew Haley wrote:
> However, there seems to be a major downside to this reform: the plan
> to add representatives from other religions. The Cabinet believe that
> "it is unacceptable that there are no representatives of Roman
> Catholicism, Methodism, Judaism, Islam, or Hinduism in the Lords":
Is it not already a convention that the Chief Rabbi is made a
life peer?
Nick Wagg
Dr Stuart McIntyre wrote:
>
> I think [our legal system] is mainly enlightened because it has
> thrown off the shakles of it's original feudal/religious roots
> somewhat sooner and faster than other contries!
Don't confuse feudal with religious. Neither confuse the implementation
of an institution with its foundation.
> The medieval law system, as "founded largely on bible teaching"
> was anything but fair; it basically had a slave underclass!
The letter to Philemon (about 90% of the way through the bible) gives
quite explicit instructions to a master as to how he should treat a
slave or servant, and indicates how the servant should also behave
towards his master. Nowhere in the bible is lording it over another
condoned.
Among the Israelites, a slave usually became a slave because he had
fallen on hard times and there was no social security. The main
recourse was to sell oneself into service for a fixed term, or until
the Sabbatical year (below). In return a slave and his family should
have received a reasonable wage, a little like a waiter or a tenant
farmer. This was certainly more enlightened than allowing someone to
starve and is very different from the evil of slavery in the usual
meaning of the word. Indeed, the arrangement was often made permanent
at the behest of the slave, not the master.
> I would have said that the "enlighetend" state of our legal system
> is due to a series of social changes which have moulded the 'divine
> right' feudal laws into modern, liberal ones.
What a pity that our enlightened society never saw fit to implement
the biblical principal of the Sabbatical (7th) year where (among
other things) property is returned to its original owner and slaves
were given the choice of regaining their freedom.
What a pity that our liberal society allows the lending of money at
extortionate rates of interest - usury, explicitly forbidden in the
bible - leading to high levels of debt - particularly owed by the
poorer countries to the Western world.
> This reflects what I see as a general correlation between
> religious interference in laws, and bad laws.
...as through a glass darkly?
--
Nick Wagg <>< (mailto:ni...@lsl.co.uk) Laser-Scan Ltd,
Senior Software Engineer Science Park, Milton Rd,
Tel: +44(0)1223 420414 (ext 213) Cambridge, CB4 4FY, UK.
Fax: +44(0)1223 420044 http://www.lsl.co.uk/
Opinions expressed are attributable to me, not my employer.
Nick Wagg
Hugo Tyson wrote:
>
> Doesn't work though does it. Unless you can give me an answer that I
> might believe to WHY? and WHO?
It obviously doesn't work for you but it works for many others.
> > Anyway, why shouldn't an omnipotent being draw attention to his son
> > and himself by marking the son's arrival on this earth and departure
> > in a spectacular way - just as human parents do.
> Because, like the fuss real parents make, actually their selfish
> blathering just annoys everyone else?
I do not consider someone celebrating the birth (or mourning the death)
of a child either annoying or selfish. I thought that it was the
church-goers who were supposed to be kill-joys.
David Damerell
Nick Wagg <ni...@lsl.co.uk> wrote:
>Dr Stuart McIntyre wrote:
>>The medieval law system, as "founded largely on bible teaching"
>>was anything but fair; it basically had a slave underclass!
>The letter to Philemon (about 90% of the way through the bible) gives
>quite explicit instructions to a master as to how he should treat a
>slave or servant, and indicates how the servant should also behave
>towards his master. Nowhere in the bible is lording it over another
>condoned.
Mosaic Law establishes that if you strike your slave and he takes more
than a day to die, this is not a crime _at all_.
But the Bible never establishes a slave underclass, right?
--
David/Kirsty 'Gotterdammerung' Damerell. dame...@chiark.greenend.org.uk
http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~damerell/ w.sp.lic.#pi<largestprime>.2106
|___| Consenting Mercrediphile. Bev White's answer to |___|
| | | Next attempt to break the world May Andrew S. Damick | | |
Robert Macmillan
> From: h...@cygnus.co.ukx (Hugo Tyson)
> In article <355715...@lsl.co.uk> Nick Wagg <ni...@lsl.co.uk> writes:
>
> > Anyway, why shouldn't an omnipotent being draw attention to his son
> > and
> > himself by marking the son's arrival on this earth and departure in a
> > spectacular way - just as human parents do.
Can you imagine the second coming? Mary goes to her parents, tells them
she's pregnant and claims it was an angel who appeared before her, and
nothing to do with her boyfriend at all, oh no. Now, which is the most
likely eventuality:
1. Jesus II gets aborted
2. Joseph does a runner, Mary brings up Jesus II as a single parent
family. Blair makes Mary go out to work and Jesus II organises a drugs
ring in his playgroup.
3. Mary and Joseph pay their taxes on time, get married and bring up
Jesus as the new Messiah. Mary is revered for the next two thousand years
by hundreds of millions of poor olive-skinned people speaking Spanish.
> Because, like the fuss real parents make, actually their selfish
> blathering just annoys everyone else?
I have an image of Huge as a five year old, slumped in an arm-chair with
his beer-can, watching "Tele-tubbies play DFS" on BBC children's hour,
and complaining about the noise the baby's making.
Must be the weather.
Robert
Dom
In article <01bd7d81$c6f46300$e601...@UKP03094.logica.co.uk>,
"Christian Mayne" <cma...@bcs.org.uk.remove.last.four.words> wrote:
>It seems to me that perhaps you're not the 'club' type - In what way are
I know I don't want to go to Fifth - but I'm interested in trying
The Fez.
>the clubs in Cambridge any different from the clubs which exist in every
>medium size city throughout the country? When people talk about 'decent'
>clubs. they talk about those in London, Nottingham or Manchester. Look at
>a city comparable to Cambridge and then make a judgement.
Nah, look at Newmarket.
>I remember you talking about (apologies if it wasn't you ;-) ) The Depot
>and claiming it would be a 'decent' club, but didn't explain how it would
>be any different from De Niros or Fifth Avenue.
It's highly subjective: how do you explain the difference between two
paintings?
>So enlighten me, what to the people in Cambridge *really* want to do in the
>evening, and what do they *really* want from a nightclub?
Dunno, I'd like a Mamba Village [1] in the quarries at the bottom of
Mill Road but the weather is a bit hard to arrange.
[1] It's in Mombasa.
Naich
On Tue, 12 May 1998, Nick Wagg wrote:
> The letter to Philemon (about 90% of the way through the bible) gives
> quite explicit instructions to a master as to how he should treat a
> slave or servant, and indicates how the servant should also behave
> towards his master. Nowhere in the bible is lording it over another
> condoned.
Why is god allowed to do it then?
Naich.
--
http://fast.to/naich +--- Warp your mind here ---------------------.
.------------------------------------------------------------------'
`-------------- Believing is easier than thinking. Hence
so many more believers than thinkers.
Dave Holland
Hugo Tyson
In article <355837...@lsl.co.uk> Nick Wagg <ni...@lsl.co.uk> writes:
> Hugo Tyson wrote:
> > Doesn't work though does it. Unless you can give me an answer that I
> > might believe to WHY? and WHO?
>
> It obviously doesn't work for you but it works for many others.
Apparently so, but that wasn't quite the assertion I was challenging. ISTR
it was "X is a good answer to WHY? and WHO?"; just because millions of
people give it lip service doesn't make it so; millions of people buy the
Sun and Lottery tickets too but neither is a good answer to "What's
happening in the world?" or "How can I get rich?" respectively. ;-)
> > > Anyway, why shouldn't an omnipotent being draw attention to his son
> > > and himself by marking the son's arrival on this earth and departure
> > > in a spectacular way - just as human parents do.
>
> > Because, like the fuss real parents make, actually their selfish
> > blathering just annoys everyone else?
>
> I do not consider someone celebrating the birth (or mourning the death)
> of a child either annoying or selfish. I thought that it was the
> church-goers who were supposed to be kill-joys.
Hey, the church is a kill joy in that it says "you mustn't do that, it's
evil in an absolute sense, even if no other being is adversely affected"
whereas as I only say "please don't do that near _me_, I don't like it."
One is invasive of privacy, the other is defensive of _my_ sensibilities.
- Huge
W.A. Sawford
On 11 May 1998, Colin Bell wrote:
> mba...@chiark.greenend.org.uk (Mark Baker) writes:
> > All Robert said is that priests are paid (generally true), that the CofE is
> > sanctioned by the government (true: he didn't specify any details, so
> > whether he knows the details of the relationship with the government is
> > irrelevant), that they drone on (not always true, of course, but I don't
> > think anyone reading it would consider it to be a statement of fact; he was
> > recounting his experiences and presumably not lying about them), that there
> > is little factual basis for church teachings (there is almost none apart
> > from the bible itself) and that it's guaranteed to wind him up (which
> > obviously he knows better than anyone else!). Wendy merely added that the
> > monarchy is also involved with the church (true).
>
> This is spin-doctoring of the first degree and I do not see any point in
> justifying it with an answer.
>
Why do you call it spin-doctoring?
Wendy
**** El Wormio *** Local & International Maring a Speciality ***
-----++++++ Vindaloo Expert ++++++------
Christian Mayne
Dom <d...@i-cubed.co.uk> wrote
> "Christian Mayne" <cma...@bcs.org.uk.remove.last.four.words> wrote:
> >When people talk about 'decent'
> >clubs. they talk about those in London, Nottingham or Manchester. Look
at
> >a city comparable to Cambridge and then make a judgement.
>
> Nah, look at Newmarket.
De Niros - of the same ilk as Fifth Avenue - charty techno with a 'party'
spot (i.e. 'Come On Eileen'). under 20s, diamond white and alchopops all
round.
The White House - Not been since it was the Dancehall. It was a gorgeous
venue then, what's it like these days? Probably a larger version of the
Fez?
Le Chat Noir or whatever it's called - a pub with a mobile DJ as I recall.
Cambridge equivalent - The Greyhound
>
> >I remember you talking about (apologies if it wasn't you ;-) ) The Depot
> >and claiming it would be a 'decent' club, but didn't explain how it
would
> >be any different from De Niros or Fifth Avenue.
>
> It's highly subjective: how do you explain the difference between two
> paintings?
Translation: "The difference would be negligible".
I'm no art critic but I know the difference betweeen clubs I do like and
clubs I don't like. However, in Cambridge I just go to the ones which most
closely fit my taste. As outlined previously, all of the 'common' tastes
are catered for.
> >So enlighten me, what to the people in Cambridge *really* want to do in
the
> >evening, and what do they *really* want from a nightclub?
>
> Dunno,
Just as I suspected.
George Hawes
h...@cygnus.co.ukx (Hugo Tyson) wrote:
>Hey, the church is a kill joy in that it says "you mustn't do that, it's
>evil in an absolute sense, even if no other being is adversely affected"
That's a very sweeping generalisarion which, I suspect, would
offend many clergy. But perhaps that was the idea?
>whereas as I only say "please don't do that near _me_, I don't like it."
But then again we all know you to be the very soul of
sensitivity and discretion . . .
G.
Mark Carroll
In article <Pine.SUN.3.96.980512152720.23876A-100000@cads>,(snip)
>> towards his master. Nowhere in the bible is lording it over another
>> condoned.
>
Because He's the only one who can be trusted to act for the best, seeing
as He's omniscient and loving and stuff?
-- Mark
Bob
Christian Mayne wrote:
> charty techno
Didn't know there was such a genre of "dance" music...
Bob.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"There are theories at the bottom of my jargon."
Richard Watts
In article <c2s*83...@news.chiark.greenend.org.uk>,
Erm, no. In the OT, it's (broadly) `because he'll kill you if you
don't'. It sort of mutates into `because he's a nice sort of chap' later
on.
Richard.
--
For centuries such freethinking individuals have been persecuted by Church,
State, and bands of peasants wielding flaming torches, scythes and pitchforks.
- Anon (AFAICT).
Richard Meredith
In article <355818B7...@cam.ac.uk>, ag...@cam.ac.uk (Al Grant)
wrote:
I thought the Lord Jakobovits had retired as Chief Rabbi, and the current
Chief Rabbi wasn't a life peer ( or at least not yet ). Or maybe I'm ahead
of the facts, or more likely behind them.
It does seem to be reasonable to have senior religious leaders in the
Lords, at least while the CofE bishops are there, but it would cause
problems selecting representatives for religions which lack a pyramidical
structure ( there is no chief imam, for instance ).
----------------------------------------------------------------------
This is cam.misc. Reality is at fault - do not adjust your newsreader.
Richard Meredith
In article <35577e72...@news.demon.co.uk>, (Occam's Razor) wrote:
>
> At least our churchgoing friend isn't proposing that the number of
> churches is the only index of how interesting Cambridge is, or that we
> should "do something" to increase the opportunities for churchgoing in
> Nottingham. Therefore, in my book, he's being less of a prat than the
> man who started this item.
If it was the only index, then Cambridge would be the one of the most
interesting places around.
Hugo Tyson
In article <6j9srt$c03$1...@shiny.i-cubed.co.uk> George...@i-cubed.co.uk (George Hawes) writes:
> h...@cygnus.co.ukx (Hugo Tyson) wrote:
> >Hey, the church is a kill joy in that it says "you mustn't do that, it's
> >evil in an absolute sense, even if no other being is adversely affected"
>
> That's a very sweeping generalisarion which, I suspect, would
> offend many clergy. But perhaps that was the idea?
No, not really, and I realize many clergy are reasonable folk who enjoy the
odd "sinful" pleasure; as do well-balanced individuals of many religious
persuations. But OTOH as a philosophy or belief-system or outlook, IMHO
one that has the concept of "evils" which actually do no harm to anyone or
anything (except perhaps the enjoyer(s) of the practice) but are nontheless
forbidden is basically meddlesome and restrictive of our basic freedoms,
and so, again IMHO, offensive.
> >whereas as I only say "please don't do that near _me_, I don't like it."
>
> But then again we all know you to be the very soul of
> sensitivity and discretion . . .
Not necessarily; though I argue here for fun, in RL I don't mind what
people do so long as they don't adversely affect _me_, and I hope they
don't mind what I do, so long as I don't adversely affect _them_. Which I
think boils down to anarchy but with civil and human rights; nice.
Of course the question becomes vexed and there's no easy solution when
eg. my car doesn't adversely affect anyone *any more than anyone else's car
does* though en masse cars as such do adversely affect lots of people; and,
erm, proversely, erm... favourably affect lots too. Or when someone
demands control or at least veto to change over the entirety of the view
from their window, or silence at all times but you must cut the
grass... ;-) and what rights to decent treatment do you afford animals,
say; everyone has a different subjective point for this sort of thing. In
such cases society has to define norms, or "reasonable behaviour", the
right to excessive deviance from which is not supported.
But in private, so long as no harm is done, you should be able to do just
what you like. In public too, so long as what you do isn't invasive of
other people's use of the public space. My point is that religions,
amongst other belief systems, invent harm or evil where there is none, to
get jurisdiction over those areas, which IMHO should be up to the
individual's choice.
If you like, I like rules that say "you mustn't do this to other
people/animals or other people's stuff/communal resources &c" but I hate
rules that say "you mustn't do this to yourself". Religion has too many of
the latter, and even "and you must stop others doing this to themselves
too"...
That's all, enough already.
It's after 1800, can I start writing code now? ;-)
- Huge
Mark Carroll
In article <6ja08c$tmd$1...@rrw1000.sel.cam.ac.uk>,
Richard Watts <rrw...@cus.cam.ac.uk> wrote:
>In article <c2s*83...@news.chiark.greenend.org.uk>,
>Mark Carroll <ma...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:
>>Because He's the only one who can be trusted to act for the best, seeing
>>as He's omniscient and loving and stuff?
>
> Erm, no. In the OT, it's (broadly) `because he'll kill you if you
>don't'. It sort of mutates into `because he's a nice sort of chap' later
>on.
Hmmm. I'm sure all that hot-tempered stuff (e.g. when Moses had to calm
Him down after the golden calf episode) was in fact part of His Secret and
Ineffable Plan and ...
(-: Fair enough. I tend to argue Christianity from a 'modern' perspective
(St Paul and all that); after all, most of my interlocutors when I'm
talking about such things tend to be Christian university students.
-- Mark
Colin Bell
h...@cygnus.co.ukx (Hugo Tyson) writes:
> No, not really, and I realize many clergy are reasonable folk who enjoy the
> odd "sinful" pleasure; as do well-balanced individuals of many religious
> persuations. But OTOH as a philosophy or belief-system or outlook, IMHO
> one that has the concept of "evils" which actually do no harm to anyone or
> anything (except perhaps the enjoyer(s) of the practice) but are nontheless
> forbidden is basically meddlesome and restrictive of our basic freedoms,
> and so, again IMHO, offensive.
Do you consider it reasonable to tell someone not to do something which
causes harm to themselves? (Or to warn them that it's not a good idea, if
you want something less 'judgemental'.) Why/why not?
What do you consider Christianity has as an 'evil' which fits into the
'no-harm' category (apart from those of a sexual nature)?
How do you know they cause no harm?
For what it's worth, I find a fair amount of Christian teaching over-
judgemental, but the position is not nearly as 'bad' as the stereotypical
view would have it.
Colin
Hugo Tyson
In article <ncmn2cn...@perot.art.co.uk> Colin Bell <c...@art.co.uk> writes:
> h...@cygnus.co.ukx (Hugo Tyson) writes:
> > No, not really, and I realize many clergy are reasonable folk who enjoy the
> > odd "sinful" pleasure; as do well-balanced individuals of many religious
> > persuations. But OTOH as a philosophy or belief-system or outlook, IMHO
> > one that has the concept of "evils" which actually do no harm to anyone or
> > anything (except perhaps the enjoyer(s) of the practice) but are nontheless
> > forbidden is basically meddlesome and restrictive of our basic freedoms,
> > and so, again IMHO, offensive.
>
> Do you consider it reasonable to tell someone not to do something which
> causes harm to themselves? (Or to warn them that it's not a good idea, if
> you want something less 'judgemental'.) Why/why not?
Warn, yes. Legislate that they absolutely mustn't, no.
Because it's none of my business; all human activity comes with (risk of)
harm to the human. Informed choice is the important thing.
Of course Xtians, for example, consider that they know better than I do
about what might happen to my immoral soul later on depending on my
behaviour now, and feel obliged to warn and inform me about this, while I
consider it a fairy story. While not wanting to deprecate any real fairies
who may be reading ;-)
> What do you consider Christianity has as an 'evil' which fits into the
> 'no-harm' category (apart from those of a sexual nature)?
"Those of a sexual nature" are excellent examples; also "drugs" in the
common parlance meaning illegal ones, addictive or not. Body piercing,
rock music, hallowe'en, touching wood (being superstition), astrology
(which is of course also fiction, for entertainment value), horror movies,
ghost stories, are all expressly ruled out by some religious leaflets I've
got, and hilarious they are too. Oh yeah, here's a good one: gambling.
Violence on TV. Sex on TV. Swearing.
> How do you know they cause no harm?
I don't, and nor do you nor the vicar know they do. It's whether they
cause acceptable harm to *me* that must be *my* judgement.
> For what it's worth, I find a fair amount of Christian teaching over-
> judgemental, but the position is not nearly as 'bad' as the stereotypical
> view would have it.
Fair enough. It's enough to put me right off; and it does the idea no help
at all in defeating scepticism about the whole fairy story. Too much of
religious teaching seems to be (obsolete) political manipulation, or even
obsolete Health & Safety regs. (Kosher, no bath plugs, &c &c)
Sure, a lot of religious moral teaching is an excellent guide to making a
sensible, fair society; but you can arrive at the same conclusions without
invoking some "God" to say what is "Right" without justification. I
wouldn't dream of arguing about no stealing, no raping, no murdering or
injuring. The others seem more social hints though: be nice to your
parents (but why should you respect people just 'cos you're related to
them?), don't tell lies (you'll get caught and regret it). Coveting your
neigbour's car, fine but don't key it out of jealousy. Adultery? It'll
cause a lot of hurt to all concerned; think carefully before you start.
> Colin
- Huge
Richard Watts
In article <ptwwbrm...@masala.cygnus.co.uk>,
Hugo Tyson <h...@cygnus.co.ukx> wrote:
>
>In article <ncmn2cn...@perot.art.co.uk> Colin Bell <c...@art.co.uk> writes:
>> h...@cygnus.co.ukx (Hugo Tyson) writes:
>> Do you consider it reasonable to tell someone not to do something which
>> causes harm to themselves? (Or to warn them that it's not a good idea, if
>> you want something less 'judgemental'.) Why/why not?
>
>Warn, yes. Legislate that they absolutely mustn't, no.
I don't see any of the major Christian sects (except some of the
far-right loonies) legislating anything.
>Because it's none of my business; all human activity comes with (risk of)
>harm to the human. Informed choice is the important thing.
True. A lot of what the Bible is claiming (at least, from what I
understand: I haven't actually got to the end of it yet :-)) seems
to be for a very good reason: even things which don't affect
others (don't eat pork, for example) are based on a real risk
(in this case, of tapeworm). Obviously Mosaic law is a little out
of date now, and even the NT is getting a little worn (though it's
less vulnerable because it doesn't lay down strict laws) and needs
a fair amount of interpretation, but if the Bible claims something
to be true, I generally find that it's worth thinking about.
Even all the stuff about `thou shalt not make graven images' has
a serious point, in that it's reminding you not to forget what
you've been told.
[ disclaimer: I'm not (particularly) fervently Xtian, I just
object to people making unfair criticisms. ]
>
>Of course Xtians, for example, consider that they know better than I do
>about what might happen to my immoral soul later on depending on my
>behaviour now, and feel obliged to warn and inform me about this, while I
>consider it a fairy story. While not wanting to deprecate any real fairies
>who may be reading ;-)
That's one way of looking at it. Another is that you should consider
doing the right thing because it is the right thing, rather than because
someone's going to play table tennis with your kidneys for all eternity
if you don't.
>
>> What do you consider Christianity has as an 'evil' which fits into the
>> 'no-harm' category (apart from those of a sexual nature)?
>
>"Those of a sexual nature" are excellent examples; also "drugs" in the
>common parlance meaning illegal ones, addictive or not. Body piercing,
>rock music, hallowe'en, touching wood (being superstition), astrology
>(which is of course also fiction, for entertainment value), horror movies,
>ghost stories, are all expressly ruled out by some religious leaflets I've
>got, and hilarious they are too. Oh yeah, here's a good one: gambling.
>Violence on TV. Sex on TV. Swearing.
This may well be true. Be careful about who you castigate though -
there are loonies and loonies, and the churches and the faith aren't
synonymous (rather the opposite in the case of the Inquisition,
in fact).
Personally, I'd regard a lot of traditional (including Biblical)
beliefs about sexuality as outdated. Again, it would be rather unfair
to blame Jesus (or Moses, for that matter) for not forseeing the
invention of the Pill, or in fact for not beginning a sermon with
`In about 1950 years, you will invent a pill to stop women becoming
pregnant. After that, you can bonk like rabbits': I mean, it's not
as if anyone would've believed him (or written it down) had he said
it.
And now we enter the `Is God really omniscient ?' debate... :-).
>
>> How do you know they cause no harm?
>
>I don't, and nor do you nor the vicar know they do. It's whether they
>cause acceptable harm to *me* that must be *my* judgement.
Fine. So do them. The important thing (imnsho, anyway) is to think
about what you're doing before you do it - it's fine to do something
provided you know what it will cost, and have studied it carefully
enough that you know it won't harm someone else. After all, what
exactly is the difference between martyrdom and suicide ?
>
>> For what it's worth, I find a fair amount of Christian teaching over-
>> judgemental, but the position is not nearly as 'bad' as the stereotypical
>> view would have it.
I agree with Colin here :-).
>
>Fair enough. It's enough to put me right off; and it does the idea no help
>at all in defeating scepticism about the whole fairy story. Too much of
>religious teaching seems to be (obsolete) political manipulation, or even
>obsolete Health & Safety regs. (Kosher, no bath plugs, &c &c)
True. Again, I don't think it's particularly fair to equate the
faith and the church (not least because there are so many churches:
you can find one or two that believe more or less anything).
Richard Watts
In article <fRv*Hi...@news.chiark.greenend.org.uk>,
Mark Carroll <ma...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:
>In article <6ja08c$tmd$1...@rrw1000.sel.cam.ac.uk>,
>Richard Watts <rrw...@cus.cam.ac.uk> wrote:
>>In article <c2s*83...@news.chiark.greenend.org.uk>,
>>Mark Carroll <ma...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:
>(snip)
>>>Because He's the only one who can be trusted to act for the best, seeing
>>>as He's omniscient and loving and stuff?
>>
>> Erm, no. In the OT, it's (broadly) `because he'll kill you if you
>>don't'. It sort of mutates into `because he's a nice sort of chap' later
>>on.
>
>Hmmm. I'm sure all that hot-tempered stuff (e.g. when Moses had to calm
>Him down after the golden calf episode) was in fact part of His Secret and
>Ineffable Plan and ...
Well, of course that's what He says _now_ .. :-).
#include <good_omens.h>
>
>(-: Fair enough. I tend to argue Christianity from a 'modern' perspective
>(St Paul and all that); after all, most of my interlocutors when I'm
>talking about such things tend to be Christian university students.
Well, yes. I'm plowing my way through the OT as we speak and it's
all quite interesting stuff (even if bits of it do get terribly
repetitive to the modern ear (eye?).
Naich
On 12 May 1998, Mark Carroll wrote:
> In article <Pine.SUN.3.96.980512152720.23876A-100000@cads>,
> Naich <d...@mrao.cam.ac.uk> wrote:
> >On Tue, 12 May 1998, Nick Wagg wrote:
> (snip)
> >> towards his master. Nowhere in the bible is lording it over another
> >> condoned.
> >
> >Why is god allowed to do it then?
>
> Because He's the only one who can be trusted to act for the best, seeing
> as He's omniscient and loving and stuff?
Let's see. He created everything, and he must have known how it would
turn out, being omnipotent and all that, so he invented earthquakes,
famine, war, disease, paedophiles, the Spanish Inquisition, World War I,
World War II, flared trousers, tapeworms, car crashes, The Dukes of
Hazzard, acne, hurricanes, tidal waves and Keith Chegwin.
I wouldn't trust him to look after a boiled egg.
George Hawes
h...@cygnus.co.ukx (Hugo Tyson) wrote:
<lots; you can't have enough RL at the moment, Huge>
But IMHO his key follow-up point was:
> My point is that religions,
>amongst other belief systems, invent harm or evil where there is none, to
>get jurisdiction over those areas,
To which I would suggest that, actually, the key question - with
reference to Christianity, and even more so with Islam - is
whether those invented 'harm or evil's are germaine to the
religion, or whether they are invented by 'followers' of the
religion acting as political beings . . .
G.
Who essentially agrees with your 'life philosophy' as set out in
this thread.
George Hawes
rmer...@cix.dontspamme.co.uk (Richard Meredith) wrote:
( there is no chief imam, for instance ).
Except in Luton, and he's just been deposed by the High Court .
G.
Al Grant
Richard Meredith wrote:
> It does seem to be reasonable to have senior religious leaders in the
> Lords, at least while the CofE bishops are there
Only the two archbishops and the bishops of London and Durham.
That's four votes among hundreds. It's not as if they could swing
many votes by voting according to church doctrine - even if that was
the way the CofE did things, which they don't.
Jon Fairbairn
rrw...@cus.cam.ac.uk (Richard Watts) writes:
> And now we enter the `Is God really omniscient ?' debate... :-).
God cannot see that this sentence is true. err, exit...
--
Jón Fairbairn Jon.Fa...@cl.cam.ac.uk
W.A. Sawford
On Wed, 13 May 1998, Naich wrote:
> On 12 May 1998, Mark Carroll wrote:
>
> > Because He's the only one who can be trusted to act for the best, seeing
> > as He's omniscient and loving and stuff?
>
> Let's see. He created everything, and he must have known how it would
> turn out, being omnipotent and all that, so he invented earthquakes,
> famine, war, disease, paedophiles, the Spanish Inquisition, World War I,
> World War II, flared trousers, tapeworms, car crashes, The Dukes of
> Hazzard, acne, hurricanes, tidal waves and Keith Chegwin.
>
And let's not forget "Songs of Praise".
Martin Hardcastle
In article <35597D8B...@cam.ac.uk>, Al Grant <ag...@cam.ac.uk> wrote:
>Only the two archbishops and the bishops of London and Durham.
Er, no. There are 26 bishops eligible to sit in the House of
Lords. Still not a lot, and their attendance isn't particularly high,
perhaps because they have other things to do.
>That's four votes among hundreds.
1,272, as at 7th May 1998. See URL:
http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/ld/ldinfo.htm
Martin
--
Martin Hardcastle Department of Physics, University of Bristol
Away with the learning of the clerks! Away with it!
Hugo Tyson
In article <6jakh7$v3j$1...@rrw1000.sel.cam.ac.uk> rrw...@cus.cam.ac.uk (Richard Watts) writes:
> In article <ptwwbrm...@masala.cygnus.co.uk>,
> Hugo Tyson <h...@cygnus.co.ukx> wrote:
> >> Do you consider it reasonable to tell someone not to do something
> >Warn, yes. Legislate that they absolutely mustn't, no.
>
> I don't see any of the major Christian sects legislating anything.
But they often want to; so it seems. "Keep Sunday Special?" Yup, it's my
special day for going to B&Q and the garden centre... ;-) nobody is
compelled by my so doing to do the same.
> >Of course Xtians, for example, consider that they know better than I do
> >about what might happen to my immoral soul later on...
>
> That's one way of looking at it. Another is that you should consider
> doing the right thing because it is the right thing, rather than because
> someone's going to play table tennis with your kidneys for all eternity
> if you don't.
(Nice image, BTW) That is precisely my position, but I think that a good
idea of "the right thing" can be gotten by using reason without invoking
superstition.
But there are religious folk who do not believe so, and who infer that an
atheist (or any non-conformist to their rules) must be morally bankrupt and
incapable of judging right and wrong. Those I object to most strenuously.
For example ISTR Mother Theresa once said "I would not trust a woman, who
has had an abortion _or used contraception_, to look after a child, for
such a person is incapable of true love" (my emphasis) Outrageous!
> Personally, I'd regard a lot of traditional (including Biblical)
> beliefs about sexuality as outdated.
Agreed utterly.
> >> How do you know they cause no harm?
> >
> >I don't, and nor do you nor the vicar know they do. It's whether they
> >cause acceptable harm to *me* that must be *my* judgement.
>
> Fine. So do them. The important thing (imnsho, anyway) is to think
> about what you're doing before you do it - it's fine to do something
> provided you know what it will cost, and have studied it carefully
> enough that you know it won't harm someone else. After all, what
> exactly is the difference between martyrdom and suicide ?
Quite; also agreed. And there's a lot of politics in martyrdom
> >Fair enough. It's enough to put me right off; and it does the idea no help
> >at all in defeating scepticism about the whole fairy story. Too much of
> >religious teaching seems to be (obsolete) political manipulation, or even
> >obsolete Health & Safety regs. (Kosher, no bath plugs, &c &c)
>
> True. Again, I don't think it's particularly fair to equate the
> faith and the church (not least because there are so many churches:
> you can find one or two that believe more or less anything).
Yup.
You can treat The Holy Book(s) as a lot of historical writing by smart,
well-meaning humans, trying to shape a civilized society(1), maybe with a
bit of political self-interest(2), which illuminates and informs moral
decisions and other stuff even today. That's fine and a wise approach.
Now we're in the realm of academic theologians. Problem is those with the
loudest voices often don't have so reasonable an attitude...
Whether a Supreme Bean in invoked alongside The Book(s) is kinda a separate
question though. Whether the Supreme Bean is actually mathematics, which
is what defines "fairness" in a social context and everything else in a
cosmological/quantum-mechanical/physical context, or moral philosophy's
definition of an absolute right and wrong and fairness, is also not
inconsistant with that view of The Book(s). The authors didn't have our
view of the universe nor maths, so expressed themselves in the terms
available for explaining the world ie. what we now call superstition.
(1) Inquisitions aside
(2) "make more Catholics as fast as you can"
Part of your sig:
> For centuries such freethinking individuals have been persecuted by Church,
is particularly relevant ;-)
You can probably tell by now that I'm an evangelical agnostic: I don't
know, I'm convinced that I _can't_ know, and my most zealous mission is to
convince everyone else that they don't know either. ;-)
- Huge
David Damerell
Richard Watts <rrw...@cus.cam.ac.uk> wrote:
>Hugo Tyson <h...@cygnus.co.ukx> wrote:
>>Colin Bell <c...@art.co.uk> writes:
>>>Do you consider it reasonable to tell someone not to do something which
>>>causes harm to themselves? (Or to warn them that it's not a good idea, if
>>>you want something less 'judgemental'.) Why/why not?
>far-right loonies) legislating anything.
Um, the American churches have a great deal of control over the Republican
Party. When they bring up anti-abortion legislation, it's not from a
secular viewpoint...
--
David/Kirsty Damerell. dame...@chiark.greenend.org.uk
CUWoCS President. http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~damerell/ Hail Eris!
|___| fak...@chiark.greenend.org.uk exists only to discover senders |___|
| | | of UCE. Please do not mail it; you are likely to be blacklisted. | | |
Colin Bell
h...@cygnus.co.ukx (Hugo Tyson) writes:
> In article <6jakh7$v3j$1...@rrw1000.sel.cam.ac.uk> rrw...@cus.cam.ac.uk (Richard Watts) writes:
> > In article <ptwwbrm...@masala.cygnus.co.uk>,
> > Hugo Tyson <h...@cygnus.co.ukx> wrote:
> > >> Do you consider it reasonable to tell someone not to do something
> > >Warn, yes. Legislate that they absolutely mustn't, no.
> >
> > I don't see any of the major Christian sects legislating anything.
>
> But they often want to; so it seems. "Keep Sunday Special?" Yup, it's my
> special day for going to B&Q and the garden centre... ;-) nobody is
> compelled by my so doing to do the same.
The people who work there are. One of the major motivations for the KSS
campaign was that, despite legislation to the contrary, those in the retail
sector not wishing to work on Sundays were likely to be strongly disadvantaged
when it came to gaining employment.
Colin
Tim Cutts
>> Do you consider it reasonable to tell someone not to do something which
>> causes harm to themselves? (Or to warn them that it's not a good idea, if
>> you want something less 'judgemental'.) Why/why not?
>
>Warn, yes. Legislate that they absolutely mustn't, no.
>Because it's none of my business; all human activity comes with (risk of)
>harm to the human. Informed choice is the important thing.
I don't think it's as clear cut as that. Consider the case of the
seatbelt law. Your argument states that it's up to the individual to
decide whether they want to take the risk of not wearing one. I can
think of a number of problems with this one:
1) If I had a car accident in which the occupant of the other vehicle
died because they weren't wearing a seatbelt, I would feel pretty
dreadful about it, even though the fact they're dead is largely their
own fault for not wearing the belt. Their choice not to wear a
seatbelt does not only affect them.
2) Insurance ramifications. I think insurance companies would be
reasonable in such a case not to pay out on a life policy because the
person had taken an unnecessary risk (unless, of course, the person
had stated that they didn't wear seatbelts, and was therefore paying a
higher premium, in which case a payout is fair enough).
Tim.
Tim Cutts
In article <6jakh7$v3j$1...@rrw1000.sel.cam.ac.uk>,
Richard Watts <rrw...@cus.cam.ac.uk> wrote:
> True. A lot of what the Bible is claiming (at least, from what I
>understand: I haven't actually got to the end of it yet :-)) seems
>to be for a very good reason: even things which don't affect
>others (don't eat pork, for example) are based on a real risk
>(in this case, of tapeworm).
I have heard interviews with rabbis who have generally said that this
is *not* the reason for the kosher eating laws, even though it does
make sense (shellfish can easily cause food poisoning too, and they
are not kosher).
Most of the kosher laws are in place partly to make eating meat more
morally acceptable (cooking a kid in its mother's milk, for example)
but mostly as a way of making a mundane part of life a religious
event, and causing the Jew to think carefully about that aspect of
life and their relationship with God. Much of the Mosaic law is
directed to this sort of end, such that you are forced to consider
your entire life as working towards God.
Tim.
Hugo Tyson
In article <ncmk97q...@perot.art.co.uk> Colin Bell <c...@art.co.uk> writes:
> h...@cygnus.co.ukx (Hugo Tyson) writes:
>
> > In article <6jakh7$v3j$1...@rrw1000.sel.cam.ac.uk> rrw...@cus.cam.ac.uk (Richard Watts) writes:
> > > In article <ptwwbrm...@masala.cygnus.co.uk>,
> > > Hugo Tyson <h...@cygnus.co.ukx> wrote:
> > > >> Do you consider it reasonable to tell someone not to do something
> > > >Warn, yes. Legislate that they absolutely mustn't, no.
> > >
> > > I don't see any of the major Christian sects legislating anything.
> >
> > But they often want to; so it seems. "Keep Sunday Special?" Yup, it's my
> > special day for going to B&Q and the garden centre... ;-) nobody is
> > compelled by my so doing to do the same.
>
> The people who work there are. One of the major motivations for the KSS
> campaign was that, despite legislation to the contrary, those in the retail
> sector not wishing to work on Sundays were likely to be strongly disadvantaged
> when it came to gaining employment.
Again, I agree with _that_, but like RTS I disagree with the methods,
ie. inconveniencing everyone else. And as you say, there is legislation to
the contrary; they should be lobbying to give it teeth rather than closing
the shops.
- Huge
Andrew Haley
Hugo Tyson (h...@cygnus.co.ukx) wrote:
: In article <6jakh7$v3j$1...@rrw1000.sel.cam.ac.uk> rrw...@cus.cam.ac.uk (Richard Watts) writes:
: > In article <ptwwbrm...@masala.cygnus.co.uk>,
: > Hugo Tyson <h...@cygnus.co.ukx> wrote:
: > >> Do you consider it reasonable to tell someone not to do something
: > >Warn, yes. Legislate that they absolutely mustn't, no.
: >
: > I don't see any of the major Christian sects legislating anything.
: But they often want to; so it seems. "Keep Sunday Special?"
Keep Sunday Special was supported by many non-religious folks,
particularly USDAW (the shop-workers union) who assumed, probably
correctly, that those who refused to work on Sundays would be badly
treated.
Andrew.
Hugo Tyson
In article <6jc4h8$3vv$1...@lyra.csx.cam.ac.uk> tj...@mole.bio.cam.ac.uk (Tim Cutts) writes:
> Most of the kosher laws are in place partly to make eating meat more
> morally acceptable (cooking a kid in its mother's milk, for example)
Sorry, I don't understand that _at_all_ unless it's trivial farming sense
ie. "if you kill a baby thing, make sure you milk the mother thing enough
or it'll get ill and suffer pain"... is that all there is to it?
> but mostly as a way of making a mundane part of life a religious
> event, and causing the Jew to think carefully about that aspect of
> life and their relationship with God. Much of the Mosaic law is
> directed to this sort of end, such that you are forced to consider
> your entire life as working towards God.
That is exactly what I object to; having done _that_ the religious leaders
have outrageous political power over the minutiae of daily life.
- Huge
Jon S Green
tj...@mole.bio.cam.ac.uk (Tim Cutts) wrote:
> In article <ptwwbrm...@masala.cygnus.co.uk>,
> Hugo Tyson <h...@cygnus.co.ukx> wrote:
> >
> >In article <ncmn2cn...@perot.art.co.uk> Colin Bell <c...@art.co.uk> writes:
>
> >> Do you consider it reasonable to tell someone not to do something which
> >> causes harm to themselves? (Or to warn them that it's not a good idea, if
> >> you want something less 'judgemental'.) Why/why not?
> >
> >Warn, yes. Legislate that they absolutely mustn't, no.
> >Because it's none of my business; all human activity comes with (risk of)
> >harm to the human. Informed choice is the important thing.
>
> I don't think it's as clear cut as that. Consider the case of the
> seatbelt law. Your argument states that it's up to the individual to
> decide whether they want to take the risk of not wearing one. I can
> think of a number of problems with this one:
>
> 1) If I had a car accident in which the occupant of the other vehicle
> died because they weren't wearing a seatbelt, I would feel pretty
> dreadful about it, even though the fact they're dead is largely their
> own fault for not wearing the belt. Their choice not to wear a
> seatbelt does not only affect them.
By the same token, no-one should ever ride a motorcycle, because it's
more dangerous than a tin box on wheels, and it'd be horrible to run
over a biker. On no account should such nasty and dangerous implements
as electric jigsaws or power drills be permitted -- just think of the
relatives' trauma if the user managed to kill themself -- and as for
kitchen knives, well...
Understand this: the seatbelt law was packaged as being "for our own
good", as if we weren't responsible adults and couldn't make an informed
decision for ourselves. If you believe that's _really_ why the law was
passed, you're either naive or fooling yourself. The reason it was
passed (and the same goes for the motorcycle helmet law) was to make our
accident statistics look better than, or at least as good as, other
European countries, and personal freedoms be damned.
> 2) Insurance ramifications. I think insurance companies would be
> reasonable in such a case not to pay out on a life policy because the
> person had taken an unnecessary risk (unless, of course, the person
> had stated that they didn't wear seatbelts, and was therefore paying a
> higher premium, in which case a payout is fair enough).
We take an unnecessary risk every time we turn on the ignition. Motor
insurance companies could certainly stipulate that their premium was
based upon the mandatory use of seat-belts (or crash helmets), and that
a premium supplement was payable if these weren't used, failing which,
personal injury cover would be severaly truncated. Life insurance
companies may make similar rules, but that'd be less likely IMHO.
Jon
--
Work: jonsg(at)harlequin_co_uk <<CHANGE '_'s http://www.harlequin.co.uk/
Private: jonsg(at)pobox_com <<TO '.'s! http://www.pobox.com/~jonsg/
Ask for PGP key <*> Opinions my own ***Del. '.nojunk' from reply addr***
No junk email! http://www.pobox.com/~jonsg/junkmail.html ICQ 4500882
Martin Hardcastle
In article <359dab37....@newshost.cam.harlequin.co.uk>,
Jon S Green <jo...@harlequin.nojunk.co.uk> wrote:
>Understand this: the seatbelt law was packaged as being "for our own
>good", as if we weren't responsible adults and couldn't make an informed
>decision for ourselves.
Tim left out what seems to me to be the best reason; that people
mangling themselves unnecessarily is costly to society as a whole,
since we have a national health service, state-funded emergency
services and so on who have to deal with putting people back
together after they've gone head-first through the windscreen in
defence of their personal freedoms.
A consistent libertarian will of course argue that we shouldn't have
these things; but the fact is that we do. Consequently it is sensible
to have (some) laws whose effect is to prevent people abusing them at
everyone else's expense. If you really want to commit suicide or to
maim yourself unpleasantly, there are ways to do it that cause minimal
inconvenience to others.
Richard Watts
In article <8ez*xq...@news.chiark.greenend.org.uk>,
David Damerell <dame...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:
>Richard Watts <rrw...@cus.cam.ac.uk> wrote:
>>Hugo Tyson <h...@cygnus.co.ukx> wrote:
>>>Colin Bell <c...@art.co.uk> writes:
[snip]>>>>you want something less 'judgemental'.) Why/why not?
>>>Warn, yes. Legislate that they absolutely mustn't, no.
>> I don't see any of the major Christian sects (except some of the
>>far-right loonies) legislating anything.
>
>Um, the American churches have a great deal of control over the Republican
>Party. When they bring up anti-abortion legislation, it's not from a
>secular viewpoint...
You have misunderstood my definition of `far-right loonies' :-).
Richard.
--
For centuries such freethinking individuals have been persecuted by Church,
George Hawes
jo...@harlequin.nojunk.co.uk (Jon S Green) wrote:
>Understand this: the seatbelt law was packaged as being "for our own
>good", as if we weren't responsible adults and couldn't make an informed
>decision for ourselves. If you believe that's _really_ why the law was
>passed, you're either naive or fooling yourself. The reason it was
>passed (and the same goes for the motorcycle helmet law) was to make our
>accident statistics look better than, or at least as good as, other
>European countries, and personal freedoms be damned.
If you are foolhardy enough to want to ride a bike / drive a car
without helmet/seatbelt respectively then I'd suggest that
disproves your claim to be a responsible adult. But you can
still do so off the public road . .
And in any case there are good (?) economic arguments in favour
of both laws.
G.
David Damerell
Richard Watts <rrw...@cus.cam.ac.uk> wrote:
>David Damerell <dame...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:
>>Richard Watts <rrw...@cus.cam.ac.uk> wrote:
>>>Hugo Tyson <h...@cygnus.co.ukx> wrote:
>>>>Colin Bell <c...@art.co.uk> writes:
>[snip]>>>>you want something less 'judgemental'.) Why/why not?
>>>>Warn, yes. Legislate that they absolutely mustn't, no.
>>> I don't see any of the major Christian sects (except some of the
>>>far-right loonies) legislating anything.
>>Um, the American churches have a great deal of control over the Republican
>>Party. When they bring up anti-abortion legislation, it's not from a
>>secular viewpoint...
>You have misunderstood my definition of `far-right loonies' :-).
Ah, so you weren't, in fact, arguing against Hugo's position that
religiously motivated legistation is a cause for concern, since you admit
it is in fact quite likely?
I wonder what you _were_ posting about...
--
David/Kirsty Damerell. dame...@chiark.greenend.org.uk
http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~damerell/ w.sp.lic.#pi<largestprime>.2106
|___| "Sic gorgiamus allos subjectatos nunc." Consenting Mercrediphile.|___|
| | | Or, in Klingon: "nucharghqangbogh chaH DISopchu' 'e' wItIv." | | |
David Knell
Nick Wagg <ni...@lsl.co.uk> wrote:
>What a pity that our liberal society allows the lending of money at
>extortionate rates of interest - usury, explicitly forbidden in the
>bible - leading to high levels of debt - particularly owed by the
>poorer countries to the Western world.
According to 'Today' this morning, it costs the Ugandans
200million somethings to service a 3.6billion something
debt. Hardly seems usurious to me.
And, seeing as my brother's failed to get his girlfriend
pregnant, would you really suggest that I'm obliged (as
it says in the bible) to have a go? Not that I'd mind,
but others might ;-)
Dave
George Hawes
da...@dave-ltd.co.uk.NOSPAM (David Knell) wrote:
>Nick Wagg <ni...@lsl.co.uk> wrote:
>>What a pity that our liberal society allows the lending of money at
>>extortionate rates of interest - usury, explicitly forbidden in the
>>bible - leading to high levels of debt - particularly owed by the
>>poorer countries to the Western world.
>According to 'Today' this morning, it costs the Ugandans
>200million somethings to service a 3.6billion something
>debt. Hardly seems usurious to me.
A view you are entitled to, as others of us are entitled to
reject. It seems to me that Nick's point related to the LEVEL of
debt rather than the rate of interest charged. The point being
that some nations stand virtually no chance of repaying the
debts WHICH THE FIRST WORLD ENCOURAGED THEM to
incur.
G,
George Hawes
dame...@chiark.greenend.org.uk (David Damerell) wrote:
>I wonder what you _were_ posting about...
Well that's a fairly common reaction to posts in cam,misc,
surely?
G.