La_Dolce_Vita

Isn't it more of a method for trying to understand things? And where there is a hypothesis or are hypotheses which can lead to a theory. The theory best explains something but not necessarily to prove or get facts.

I find debating this sort of things rather weird and silly because it's jo different than debating whether Thor's or Zeus's existence. But anyway, if it were true that the Christian God exists then it isn't science that keeps people in the dark, it would be that God,as he would be either stupid or incompetent, possibly both. If Man is ignorant of him then that's because God has failed to demonstrate his existence and beliefs. The Bible is a mish-mash of beliefs written by men so communicating things through the writing of me who died long ago is ridiculous. But even if God wrote and air-dropped the books across the world, of all the ways that a God could communicate his existence and intentions, a book has to be one of the most stupid ways of doing so. Anyway, something about you seems strange. I would think that anyone with much knowledge of chemistry would more than likely have an understanding of what science is and how it works rather rail against it. Either you are having some fun or you don't know much about science.

I disagree. I wonder who has written this, why they have and in what context. Science is possibly the best tool to examine and explain the universe in such a way that it might allow for any purpose to be discovered. But there has not been any evidence that points to any purpose, in the sense of a plan. But religion doesn't examine and it's explanations don't seem to offer any evidence of there being a purpose. It's no different to me making up something right now about some being creating things and making a plan. Science and religion could be pitted against each other and this has happened to good effect. Myths and ignorant beliefs in the bible have been rejected because of scientific discovery. The order of creation in Genesis is not correct and the earth isn't at the centre of the universe, for example. But again, a religious person arguing against scientific evidence thinking that this backs up their beliefs is ridiculous when they can't offer anything to support their beliefs.

Even if there was some creation involved, where we found that the universe and living creatures were created that certainly doesn't imply a God must have done it. And then it's another gigantic step to think that the God of the Bible exists and did it. The delusion is filling the gaps in our knowledge with the ignorant supernatural beliefs of desert-living nomads who lives over two centuries ago. As for evolution, there is plenty of evidence for that. And, as far as I am aware, they have found that amino acids can form under certain conditions. And science doesn't know a lot things. We have theories that provide a possible explanation but nothing is concluded or definitive. That's science. Religion, on the other hand, is about claiming to know things and thinking things true. If people don't have evidence to back these things up then they shouldn't carry any credibility. Unfortunately, we can't seem to shake religion off. It's a flaw of our humanity, I think. But anyway, dismissing evidence for these things isn't really important. You have to provide evidence that your God exists to have any credibility for your beliefs. Considering you beliefs in the Christian God, I very much doubt you can do that. And, I don't want to write anyone off, but considering you seem to put weight on the Bible, I am sceptical about you being rational in any discussion about these things.

Judging by the keeills?

They haven't done so at every parliamentary debate. Aren't they understood to be guests to express a view on something that is fundamentally related to a motion? That, as you know, is different from a permanent position to debate and vote on everything.

I think we are talking cross purposes. When the public make decisions, that's democracy. When businesses make decisions, it isn't. They're not the public, but are unique entities. The more influence businesses have on government, the less democracy there is in the government, the running of the country. This isn't opinion. It is why the liberal democratic governments have laws and systems in place to set up barriers to particular forms of influence and it is why some forms are illegal, often called corruption. The problem in this country and other countries is that these state-capitalists system place economic power in private hands so government cannot easily act purely on popular will, as this could affect what businesses set up and do business. For anyone who places democracy as being of great importance, private economic power diminishes democracy. When all the people have is a vote for a party or a person to make decisions over years, there isnt much democracy in liberal democratic systems. But when you factor in the influence that this private power has simply on recognition of what could happen, good or bad, from decisions businesses take, it doesn't leave much room for democracy, nevermind the consultations, meetings, partnerships etc. with these entities. I don't see the liberal democracies are democracies in any meaningful sense of the word. Now in the current type of economic system, much of this might be inescapable. But if we really do value democracy then I think people need to wise up about just how little their views count. On the isle of man, I do notice how the influence is more overt and possibly less disguised than it is in the UK. I do find it peculiar that we have a large and vocal department of government that is designed specifically to cater for business. And yet whilst doing so it also has divisions that deal with employment law and education. They may be different divisions of the same department but it all seems far too close for comfort. It is unacceptable to have anyone who has the ear of private business interests have any involvement with matters of employment law or deciding on what education young people need. It possibly has merit on ensuring that people are employable. But to what degree are the needs of businesses driving what happens with employment laws and how are young people are educated? Is the public picking up the tab by assuming the responsibilities of businesses in training staff? Or is there a risk of that? And the Economic Plan appeared as a draft with no public contribution to it. That's nothing unique, but again, it's not democratic. And then there is a conference that is set up on a weekday and which has an agenda written in office jargon and which was attended mainly by businesses and government. It's a pretense of public ratification. In other countries and in the UK they disguise all of this in a much better way. And that might be by simply not having conferences like that or not advertising as overtly who the government is working with and whose opinions they have been taking. It's just rather dismal that on the isle of Man it is almost celebrated. It's embarrassing, as it shows how little the general public have much political sense outside of the limits of their vote and whether their MHK is for or against some comparatively trivial problem. I think because the presence and dominance of the finance sector over the last few decades, the island's political culture in having a population with less education and exposure to working class politics and the role of the media in giving comparatively greater and positive attention to the role of these businesses has rendered the Manx public are rather ignorant and dull to how the pretense of democracy is played out in nearby countries. The UK government wouldn't get away with a lot of what happens here, but nobody complains here. Unfortunately, ignorance might be best for the public. When the banks and other financial institutions have fucked up the lives of so many people. When the major accountancy firms have an atrocious track record of getting in legal bother across the world and when parts of gaming industry has an arguably unethical presence in society when advertising any gambling, it all makes the island's economy look pretty nasty. But people work in it, so if people ignore this or don't care then life is sweeter. It all makes the question of democracy on the isle of Man rather silly, I think. Maybe referenda might be a good thing to at least have some popular will expressed. At least I'd know where the views and decisions were coming from and why they have been expressed.

I only mention Christianity because it's most relevant to the discussion but you're right. And what you say does bring up the most important point here, if we have people in society who make decisions that are in any way influenced by irrational beliefs then that's a problem. It's more of a problem if that happens with decisions made on behalf of others. I do think with many of the questions raised in the past in debate by the bishop that they Bishop's views have been supported by research and education on the topics that has been completely missing from other members of LegCo. Nevertheless, religious beliefs are guaranteed to have influence with the role of the bishop and that's not good.

If you can't provide evidence that your God exists then you can't really expect anyone to pay your beliefs any notice. Same goes for all Christians and their delusions. Though Revelations is the most bonkers part of the bible. A loopy addition to something already irrational. The only thing interesting or worthy of attention about it is how it ended up in bible.

Is that right? I didn't think the seat exists simply because it is the established church. I understood that the seat exists because the legislative council was originally what we have inherited from mediaeval times where a group of representatives of the English crown used to represent and advise the Lord of Mann based on their area of expertise. The bishop's seat is the last old position that has remained.

I would say we have bigger problems than that when it comes to democracy. If business interests have influence on how the economy is going to operate then that is not a democratic system at all. If KPMG are brought in as a partner to government without any public mandate for this and suggest to government what it should be doing, including removal of work permit, then how much influence is this private entity and others having on the big decisions affecting our lives? We also have a department that is set up to make sure that businesses will want to come here and now also seems to work to try to see what they want. Again, this is not democratic. It's actually a much better deal for businesses than it is for the public who just get a vote. I don't put much weight on consultations and certainly conferences that are not at all designed for welcoming public opinion. Besides, if it is not actual public decisionmaking on these things when businesses have such a strong influence then it's not a democracy at all.

Each time this is debated it always seem to be about excuses to keep the bishop. Maybe it is better if they tried to evaluate it as it was a decision about adding a new person the Council and whether there are compelling reasons for doing so.

I don't mean that they don't have Christian beliefs necessarily but the Bishop is someone who presumably does take the Bible and its contents seriously. They is a disconnect between those who profess to have Christian beliefs and someone who is a Christian and takes the Bible seriously. The bishop hardly represents those people when most of their beliefs amount to little more than cherry-picked warm and fuzzy stuff about Jesus and God loving everyone, not doing unto others..., and the stuff about heaven.

Yes, I agree. Over 50% putting Christian down must be understood as nothing more than a lot of people ticking the box when you probably believe in some vague idea of a God. There simply aren't anywhere near that number of people who take Bible seriously and know much of what is in that book.

I don't think gambling should be advertised but then I don't think it's a good thing. Why would we want to encourage people to do it? People can be free to do something but I wouldn't want them to be encouraged to do something, especially if it could lead to repetitive behaviour or serious addiction. Advertising makes use of tried and tested techniques to win something psychologically. All the more distasteful when it is just to make a company rake in more money. With it being gambling, it definitely should get be banned. I would do the same with adverts for any products intended for children as well.

I don't think you are addressing what I meant. If I read something first to mean 'eating Grandma' because there was no comma then that's an error in writing, despite knowing very quickly what is really meant. If someone isn't educated on these things or doesn't care then that's a problem for schooling. It just means that the person shouldn't be writing business letters, media reportage, etc. as they can't express themselves in the most clear way.

Is it? If the comma made no difference then I'd agree. If there was a possibility of it first being read as eating grandma then it's not fine when a comma can remove or reduce that possibility. The punctuation means you don't have to read something again. If someone isn't educated well on this sort of thing then that's not worth berating them. If they don't care and don't see the point, they might be ignorant of these things and think it's normal. Maybe that's an education thing. And it depends on what is being read. If it's in a text or email from a friend then it doesn't matter. It's not good in formal writing, the media, or in business documentation.

I don't think anyone would necessarily be more supportive if they had been helped by military forces because being grateful for that act would only be for that work, which would not encompass the work of the British armed forces. That's like saying someone saying that they should be grateful to the police in a very repressive country because they are very helpful to public dealing with catching offenders, whilst they are often used to arrest people for speaking out against the government. You're also thinking that this is about the British armed forces. I could and would make the comments if I was a US, french, German, etc. citizen where there was an identical type of day. And the reality is that the armed forces do not exist and are used to protect the nation but rather they are a tool for a nation to foreign policy I am not saying that we should necessarily applaud singular instances. I am only criticising the idea of support instances, which is what this Day is about. As I was saying, you can't support the armed forces without supporting all that they do and without supporting how the British nation operates in the world to advance it's own economic and strategic interests

https://www.manxradio.com/news/isle-of-man-news/island-set-to-mark-armed-forces-day/ I think it's a shame that Armed Forces Day replaced Veterans Day. I'm all for remembrance and making sure that people get the right support and care but that's where it stops. Why would we suppose the work that the armed forces do when that does includes a lot of nasty stuff that Britain has done in the last century? And it does mean that because support becomes meaningless if it doesn't mean what is done. We could applaud assistance in a humanitarian crisis or fighting in WW2. But would we do the same for the Suez Crisis, Mau Mau Rebellion, Malayan Emergency, Iraq War and Afghanistan involvement? And the same would be true of any other nation. The whole event seems more about patriotism than genuine interest in helping people. But that's why I think this came about with the Gordon Brown's Labour government trying to inspire patriotism to win support.

I think grammar and punctuation matters because it isn't just about whether you can read something but it's about whether you can read something in the easiest way, with any ambiguity and so that things look tidy.

I think I completely understand where you are coming from. The war was one of those things that people felt pride about. It naturally and gradually becomes less significant as time goes on for something to point to for pride because Britain is very different and few people are around from that time. (World War I is a different thing, something as an aside. There was no moral cause and no noble sacrifice. Just a very sad slaughter in my mind. It's more of an embarrassment of what people can do to each other.) I say I'm British too, or Manx first, depending on whether someone understands what being Manx is. But what is there today for pride? As for special relationship, that's more of a British myth. When you look at the relations, consider the existence of strategic and economics alignments, especially in the last few decades, there is little there to demonstrate it. It comes up often when the British government are trying to convince the Boss about seeing things from a joint view than a purely American one.

I don't know. I find it hard to understand any sort of British nationalism these days, if it isn't a northern Irish unionist one or a misty-eyed obsession with the past when being British could understandably inspire some pride. I don't mean that being British should have inspired pride, as patriotism, and maybe even nationalism, aren't positive things. But I understand the sort of things that people look for when they feel pride in their nation. But there is so little that I can think British nationalists can look for. More embarrassments when you start looking. The economy is a mess. The strength of the military isn't anything unique or special. Foreign policy is dismal. The UK becomes more and more of a lapdog to the US and doesn't have much freedom to act independently or to say anything of much worth and clout outside of the shadow of the US. I tend to think that nationalists had more to be proud of in being part of the EU because of the influence the UK had there. Yet the UK only slides into having less influence and coming more under the influence of the US. The political class of government in the last couple of decades are embarrassments. And there are no statesmen. But they also don't display any genuine sense of British nationalism. The Conservatives seem more unabashedly interested in making sure that their class does well with little appeal to patriotism. Maybe there is something cultural but I struggle to think that all-British. Despite equality legislation, it seems like other rights are being eroded with changes to union laws and now protesting. I don't think the UK can claim to be a bastion of freedom and liberalism like it could. Yet, there are quite a number of people on the island and some recent politicians who seem to hold to a weird 1950s British nationalism. I don't know if that is the influence of some comeovers. It's like they're more proud of being British when the UK is having an identity crisis.

I avoid Boots now when I read those media articles that covered how Boots were supposedly charging the NHS huge amounts for bespoke medications. And they're now owned by Walgreans.

There is a fort above the entrance to the driveway for the rugby club.

The easiest way to stop worrying about the TT is to recognise that fatalities are not tragic or even sad. Many people bang on about them being such but cognitive dissonance probably explains a lot. If people take part in something by choice and for thrills knowing it is very dangerous then they place a certain value on their life. Accordingly, I will place the same value on that. That means a death isn't going to move me much past it a little sad (for something entirely out of their control) or not moving me at all. The same would be the case if someone dies whilst mountaineering or underwater cave diving or anything else that is a hobby and is very dangerous. To get emotional about things seems pretty silly to me. No doubt the family will be very upset. I can have empathy for that but the participant and the riders who have close relationships with that rider would have had the opportunity to support to withdraw their support and to argue for or against, or even end their relationships if they needed. That's their business. But we can respect the skills and passion of these people and marvel at their accomplishments. If accidents were happening when people are not taking great risks then that's the time for much emotions like appreciable sadness and when you look and making sure things cannot happen again, like removing an unsafe road crossing or banning a form of transport if it was inherently dangerous, etc. For the TT, you can make some things safer, but if people want to take risks then that's up to them. Just seems like you're making things hard on yourself. We could live in a society where we treated life with a consistently high value and, therefore, we would take a very dim view of things like this and we would not want to have a government endorse any non-essential activity that was dangerous but that would go against our human nature, I think. I don't think other people are acting in a nice way to criticise people who want the races stopped as it comes from a good place of wanting to value and protect life. But freedom is also very valuable.