Posts by FletcherB
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Paul said "Whats the story with Yahoo!Xtra? What with Xtra and MSN being buddies and all... "
Russell has mentioned it in his blog and Listener column in the past months.
Short version- contracts expire. Sometimes you renew them with the same "partner" and sometimes you go elsewhere.
-
Regarding the extroadinary evaporation of single malt whiskeys...
I'm sure, that as Russell contends, it evaporates faster when friends are around... But even without friends visiting, it seems no matter how tightly I replace the cork or screw down the cap, a 750ml or 1l bottle of the stuff dissapears before its second week from purchase has passed (and sometimes not the first week).
And, as Russell aslo pointed out, at ~$100 a go, thats too rich for my budget on any regular basis... so Its duty free only for me.
Luckily, my tastes are still at the cheaper end... having been introduced to the pleasures by a wee lass from Islay, I still find Laphroaig (a whole 5 doors down from her parents house:), and Lagavulin very fulfilling.
Have you tried "Lord of the Isles"? It used to be on Whiskey Galore's pages but appears gone now? It was truely eye opening, and unbeleivably smooth, when I was offered a nip.
-
Ok, thats a fair point Deborah.
So why dont the rights to freedom from abduction and detention without trial (by thier own custodial parents), equally apply to children too? Are these the next parental controls to be removed by law? Is this possibility good/bad/rediculous?
I think some "human rights" are not applicable to the parent/child relationship. Is (mild) physical violence one of them? I'm not sure.
I dont claim to hold some ultimate truth that I'm slowly revealing... I'm just thinking this through as we go.
And yes.. I can see the logical endpoint to my slippery slope argument. Theres no way I could ever suggest freedom to life is a right parents can ride over... Thats just way too far past "reasonable force" for anyone to argue for.
-
But why ARE we only discussing one aspect of childrens rights.... and then using the if its good enough for adults, then its good enough for kids too argument?
If its a good or logical argument, surely it applies to the all types of rights?
The fact that it clearly doesnt apply to all types of rights suggests maybe it doesnt apply to this one, or even any?
Discussing whether its right/wrong is all good with me.
Discussing whether its right/wrong BECAUSE its wrong for adults seems wrong/bogus/ill-informed, is all I'm saying.There are definitely valid grounds for discussion... I'm just suggesting the more invalid ones we can get rid of, the clearer it will be for all of us.
-
Also, people who take the anti-anti-smaking debate, or the pro-light smaking debate, and rephrase it to "people who think its OK to bash kids" are being entirely unhelpful.
Nobody here has suggested that anything leaving permanent or healable marks/injuries is good or acceptable.
To suggest that someone who thinks its OK to lightly smack is also saying its OK to "bash" is as idiotic as saying people who think its OK to drive at 55kmh also think its OK to drive at 200.
We're trying (and mostly succeding) at having a rational debate.... Please dont muddy the waters more than they need to be?
Cheers!
-
I've just read David Heywood's Southerly blog.
And it provoked some thoughts... I then picked up where I'd left this thread a couple of days and 5 pages ago... and see that some of these thoughts had been mentioned... but I think they bear repeating as they were mostly ignored....
I think Stephen Glaister is onto something where he's suggesting that the parent/child relationship is "special" and cant be juudged on the same adult/adult terms.
Many of those saying that assualt is as wrong for a child as it is for an adult, are suggesting alternative punishments/teaching methods that are just as wrong if used adult/adult.
Forcing another adult to accompany you against their will is kidnapping/abduction.
Forcing another adult to stay where you tell them is detention without trial... like the "naughty chair" or locked room?
This doesnt prove that corporal punishment is acceptible.... But it suggests that deciding whether its acceptable or not, based on other adult rights, is false logic.It's not just a parents right, but thier JOB to make children do things, or not do things against thier will. It's how you train them to be good adults.
I have smacked my children before... due to factors unrelated to the current public discussions, I've decided I wont be doing that any more. I'm still undecided whether smacking (lightly) should or should not be illegal. Its a very complicated issue.
But suggesting that kids rights should be the same as adults ones, is bogus.... if you carried that out to its fullest.... thered be no way you could teach them anything.
Unfortunately, you DO have to break their free will at times, no matter whether the method is "acceptable" or "unnaceptable".
Whether they should or do gain adults rights at 16/18/21 is not clear to me... but children are not just small adults, and as much as we'd like to, they cant be treated as such all the time.
-
As the father of a young girl, I find the (rather obvious) rise of sexualization of young women over the last 10-15 years somewhat disturbing. I also remember that it wasnt that long ago I was a single non-father, and I wasnt too distressed by it then. (but I had already noticed the trend.)
I think calling it a return to the 60/70s is most appropriate... the '80's conservatism was in response to that freeing up maybe going too far? (Aids being a headline grabber probably helped), and now this freeing up / relaxing of conservatism is in response to the '80/90's.
I'm just hoping by the time my 3 year-old is hitting puberty/teenage that its swung back again!
As to whether small children should be a billboard for adult irony? I dont have a problem with that if its non-sexual irony.
A couple of years late now, but small boys in "Weapon of Mass Destruction" T-shirts made me laugh. -
Thanks Anjum for the report on the interfaith forum.
But theres a problem with "i would have like atheists to be much more involved in the discussions - "
Heres the problem... people who belong to one faith or other can perceive of themselves as a group, and can attend such a forum as representatives of that group (even if not officially sanctioned by the group) and they can meet with members of other such groups, and they can swap opinions, and say those opinions are informed by their group membership....
But most athiests dont perceive of themselves as a group in that way. The only thing that links them is a lack of belief in what you believe in.
You can get some athiests to attend your forum, but you can't get "the athiests" to attend.... there is no such group.
One athiest does not represent any others, and their views are theirs alone, they cannot present "what athiests believe" to other groups with any authority. There are no shared views or beliefs amoungst them, except that they dissagree with your belief.
-
Oh... and as to "watching each of the nominees, and voting for the best in each category"...
Yes, that IS how its supposed to work... but frequently doesnt.
Often, "The Academy" takes on a Borg-like collective intelligence and votes for a winner that doesnt actually deserve it on this years effort, but was denied one earlier when they should have got it...
Examples... If Scorcese wins this year...
Russel Crowe's Oscar says "Gladiator 2000" but many think he got it for the acting in "The Insider 1999"
Bigger film geeks than me could probably name a dozen off the top of thier heads?
-
Commenting on only the ones I've seen...
Dreamgirls... I didnt dislike it as much as others have mentioned, but I agree it aint Oscar material. I didnt think my time had been wasted.
The Queen. Wasnt expecting much, but it was pretty good. Probably still not Oscar material, but a closer call than dreamgirls. I thought it treated the subject with balance, and provided a good explination for the families behaviour, which at the time, was shown in the popular media as just hard hearted/headed indifference or lack of caring, if not out-right snub.
Little Miss Sunshine. Fantastic. I was laughing gently throughout at regular intervals, and then at the end I laughed so hard and long, I nearly fell of the couch. Great finish.