La_Dolce_Vita

The ridiculous nature of Christianity is in the contradictions of the beliefs and also the lack of sense in many of those beliefs that are incompatible with any God that is intelligent. The dragon never takes the food despite feeding it every day. Does it not need food?

With the Christian God, I definitely think it can be said that this God does not exist. That doesn't need any proof to disprove its existence. If you take a look at complete lack of evidence for it, how this belief originated, and the character and qualities of this God in the Bible it should be quite obvious that it is just human fabrication by desert people from over 2000 years ago. It's the same with Thoth or Dionysus, or the invisible Dragon in my garage. We don't need proof. If something seems extremely implausible then we can easily say it is bullshit. Christianity is too ridiculous for it to be true.

Do you really feel that way? I have a problem with any person or an organisation that tries to knowingly convince others of things that are not true, especially if that is done for financial gain. People talk about 'live and let live' when it comes religion, but is it not better that we strive as a society to believe in things that are true, especially if beliefs can have an effect on how people live their lives? If people think they're going to a better life then how much do they value this one? How much time and energy is spent thinking about and acting in accordance with these delusions about a Christian God? I have heard about a friend of mine who has now joined Living Hope. I feel saddened by this because I know they're life with be different by revolving around something that simply isn't true. All because of bad thinking. We should be teaching children how to think better so they don't end up continuing to be children by wanting to hold on these sort of mental toys.

In the long term it only helps the banks and the wealthiest. If 'bail outs' become the norm then that means that entities that enjoy the privileges of being private-enitites are free to take risks and the consequences of them transferred to society. How can that be justified? Even if the bailouts were delivered to all entities negatively affected, such as members of the public, who have lost out, it would still be ridiculously unjust when those risks are not taken by the very people who suffer their consequences. But the 2008 banking crisis wasn't a bailout for everyone. It's like a fucked up form of socialism, except private businesses are not society, yet their risks are socialised. If a local retail shop managed it's finances poorly and ended up having problems then I wouldn't expect it to get financial support for that. Obviously, the reason for that isn't because it's too small to worry about it failing. It's because it's finances and risks are it's own business. That's capitalism. And the same applies to me if I make risky choices with my finances. I should have a better claim to public finances if socialist principles are applied anywhere but somehow the corporation gets the public's money. Capitalism for me and socialism for the corporation's. That's fucked up. If a business plays such a massive role in the economy then something needs to be changed about how it is allowed to operate or even about how it can exist. If these entities were so heavily regulated that the possibilities of them getting into bother was highly unlikely then at least that would be something but the US and British governments don't require this.

Because of the manner she makes her argument or what she has said? Yet she seems to be arguing that sitting at the negotiating shouldn't be contemplated whilst territorial handover is a condition. It's much the same as what the British government state, unfortunately.

If only it was that, as I agree that would be a great show. It sounds like you were horribly disappointed.

Drag queen and drag artist are the same thing really. It's only that many drag artists do not want to called 'drag queens' very often because the term 'drag queen' evokes a particular look and type of performance, and often the personality of the persona. And the term 'queen' follows from the term applied to some gay men by themselves, or by others, seriously or as a joke, but many drag artists are not gay men. But both drags queens and drag artists are performers and the names refers to someone's job or hobby. It's not an identity in the same was as trans, which seems to be implied by some jokes here.

https://www.imuseum.im/Olive/APA/IsleofMan/SharedView.Article.aspx?href=TMS%2F1879%2F05%2F03&id=Ar00513&sk=2FBD049F&viewMode=image

But why? I don't understand where you're coming from, as it implies that children have not been 'sexualised' at that age.

One of Laxey's main water sources, pre-1850s, was right where the End Cafe used to be. Could it be less stable there because of spring water coming down?

You didn't explain where this idea of sex life being a dominant part of someone's personality comes from. I'm only asking. It's an assumption or supposition you've made and I'm trying to understand what you mean. I didn't deliberately misread. I misread. What would be the point of deliberately misreading if it's quite plain what you had said. I apologized for misquoting. But no, drag performances are not a sex thing. Cross-dressing is a sex thing. That's where men (or women) get a sexual thrill from dressing in different clothes.

There used to be a lot more beach at that part of the shore. I mean from looking at old photos from the early 1900s. Not sure why that changed, unless it was the building of the harbour breakwaters.

You present an understanding or view, which you say is an assumption, and when you are asked you seem a little defensive and repeat that you know next to nothing about these things. I'm only trying to suss out what you do know or have misunderstood to see if I can explain. I didn't know whether the sex thing was about the drag or being gay. But yeah, drag shows are very often about sex and many are seedy. However, it is a performance. That performance is not given in the school, as you would know. There are different reasons why drag queens and artists exist and why the performances are popular. I personally like some forms and dislike others. But the whole thing of the person doing drag as a hobby or job is not relevant now anyway. Nobody turned up in drag doing a drag performance. It's like someone saying a comedian, clown, or belly dancer came in to the school and then finding out it's just a reference to what that person does as a hobby.

Are you confusing cross-dressing (tranvestites) with gay drag performance? I wasn't sure whether that is why you are mentioning sex here or whether it's because you think that a drag queen (being almost certainly a gay person) is in some way putting sex life 'out there'. Drag performances are for an adult audience in most cases, as sexual innuendo forms part of the repertoire, but that's the performances themselves.

Yes, it is tedious. A thread about fraudsters phoning DBC tenants turns into irrelevant moaning. The comments could be made on the other thread, if anywhere.

In a democracy, you'd expect the public to be deciding on the future of the economy and on aspects of it such as work permits, but it really does seem like that it is private business that has the ear of government. Making sure that people have jobs and that the economy is strong does obviously require an understanding of what will get businesses here and have businesses stay but how are island residents making the decisions here? A multinational company is some sort of partner of government on a plan for the future of the economy. The public didn't decide on this partnership. The public didn't even have a consultation to put forward concerns that would go into a first draft. There was a government conference AFTER a plan has been drawn up and on a weekday when the participants would most likely be representing private business. And the agenda is presented and written in language more suited to white collar workers. And then there is a very detailed and verbose consultation on something that could have very significant effects on society. There are no separate consultations for the public and then one for private business to demonstrate the primacy of public views and treating private interests as separate. For something as profound as work permits, you'd think, in a functioning democracy, there would be referenda or even public meetings to have these things explained in full and presented in an understandable way. I can't imagine most people would be able to understand the consultation, nevermind the matter of being aware of it and how important it could be

Ok, thank you for explaining. I can see what you mean about the difficulties. Bearing this all in mind, it's still a problem for those companies and the risks they choose to make. I wonder whether the bailouts of 2008 have set a terrible precedent for private entities to expect public money if they get in bother.

I don't think I'm asking a stupid question here but why are companies permitted to put all their money in one bank if it is a riskier doing so? I saw in the news that hundreds of companies are begging for help from the government and saying it will be a blow to the economy. I don't doubt that but it seems the injustice of the current economic system is one where companies don't have to deal with consequences of taking risks. If that's so then why should be allowed to take them? Either they should fend themselves and 'live by the sword and die by the sword' as private entities or they should be heavily regulated.

https://www.citizensadvice.org.uk/housing/repairs-in-rented-housing/repairs-what-are-your-options-if-you-are-a-social-housing-tenant/using-the-right-to-repair-scheme/ This is the UK scheme that I was thinking of. If maintenance work people have been waiting ages, such as (until recently) checking into damp taking months to do and leaks and light repairs taking several weeks or more, as I've been told, then maybe the compensation at least gives people the ability to do the work privately.

I don't mean this about you but I'd think someone would have to be a bit dense or naive to think that a drag queen was giving sex education lessons in the sense of discussing sex. If the island had no curriculum and just made it up as they went along then it would still not make sense. Even the idea of a drag queen going in to a school to talk about gender would be very odd because although people who dressee in 'drag' may have something to say about gender, to do so in their capacity of being a drag queen would be very strange, or rather funny considering how ridiculous that sounds. You might have someone who performs as a drag queen, yet also dresses in 'drag' or the non-typical men's clothing who has experience to talk about gender. But I don't know if this happened. Suffice to say, the idea of a drag queen giving sex ed just sounds like complete bollocks.

But if, in the last few years, people have to wait a long time for non-emergency maintenance then things might not have been done or left too long . I think the waiting times for some local authorities have been very long. For the Corpy and other authorities, It might be helpful to see the average waiting times and the number of jobs reported but not completed for non-urgent plumbing, electrical, structural? etc. for each quarter and for the last few years to the present I did see an FOI about housing complaints which seemed to be on the back of a news reports about maintenance but most social housing is local authority and most people wouldn't complain and might have put up and shut up. In the UK, or maybe just in Scotland, if the local authority doesn't do work on time then I think you can get compensation for this.

A drag queen is like...Ru Paul. A man dressed in a woman's dress with a lot of make up to exaggerate features and dressed up for some sort of performance. Someone in drag is just wearing the clothes of the opposite sex but it does imply performance and something temporary . Not anything hinging on identity. That's why I find the whole drag queen thing peculiar and presumed unlikely, as a drag queen wouldn't have any place in a sex ed class. It's different if it was someone trans who wears clothes that align with their identity.

I'm not sure what it really means when people claim that we are a Christian culture or country, to whatever degree. I'd tend to say that we are not and that's almost wholly about knowing how many Christians there are and their influence. I don't put much weight in history and symbols of Christianity

Teaching about the existence of other beliefs and the people who hold them is fine. Teaching about the beliefs to give them credence or convince is not fit for schools. Diversity and inclusiveness have very different meanings. Diversity is addressed by teaching about other people and about the existence of other beliefs. Inclusiveness doesn't really have a relevance here. When I was at primary school we had religious people come in who would talk about Jesus or Christianity as if it was something that should be considered as factual. Seems crazy looking back. Nobody should even be treating these things as beliefs to consider as possibly credible in schools. As for religious schools, if they are privately funded then I suppose that is not as bad as the idea of anything being state-funded. I disagree with the idea of society funding any religious education regardless of the wishes of parents. If someone wants their child to have religious education then that's should be out of their pocket.

I was trying to find out whether the problem was with one type. Personally, I tend to think Year 7 isn't too early. I think so but not sure. At Year 7, from what I can recall being that age, most children had an idea of what sex is. And that's knowing what sex is. As for talk about innocence, well, that's just naivety. Children at year 7 have a good idea that sex exists. The whole drag queen thing is being misunderstood as nobody said a drag queen was teaching about sex.