Another Drive4show 'Anything goes' thread

[kwinigolfer]

First topic message reminder :

Sr,
1).Correct. Wonderful is right. Though in the American order of things behind the NFL, College Football, High School Football, NBA, College B'ball.
2).Not much of a market: 21,000 per home game.
3).But no other nations pay their players a fraction of this sort of bounty. He'll probably end up using PED's, just like his predecessor as highest paid.
Ridiculous money!

[super_realist]

I'm rather sick of hearing about it all really.

It's about time people got over the obsession with football being newsworthy, it's a game for goodness sake.

[beninho]

Completely in agreement that the righteous mob mentality is over the top and actually damaging the valid points put over by both sides of the argument. If a club is willing to take a punt on the potential sponsor loss in the hope he is still the same player he was 3 years ago, then let them. Nothing stopping them, but for him like any convicted r***ist he just needs to find someone to employ him. Probably easier when you are a professional footballer.

The country has had an obsession with football for years and years. It's never going to change.

[kwinigolfer]

This is not about anyone's obsession with football, it's about their obsession with sex, and the possibility that a footballer was in the wrong place at the wrong time.
As has been said elsewhere, footballers and First Ladies who drive drunk and kill innocents are allowed to get on with their careers. Serial drunk drivers become Vice President and start illicit wars and there's not half the outrage that the Evans case has generated.
There needs to be a sense of proportion here.

[golfermartin]

I am a professional chartered engineer. If I was found guilty of committing r***, I would not expect my previous employer to take me back when I got out of prison. I'm not sure that my institution would allow me to retain my chartership. Everyone is saying that Ched Evans is being made unemployable. That is not true. He could get a job with a company that will employ convicts, out of the public eye. Maybe gardening, shelf stacking - I don't know. He could do some community work, teach kids football, show that he is trying to reintegrate in society, at least until his review has been heard. If he is then found not guilty, he can go back to his former career. If not, if he keeps his nose clean he might be able to work his way back in a couple of years.

[Davie]

Agree with JAS that the sentences should be harsher, but the fact is he HASN'T served his sentence yet - he's out on license but is still serving the sentence rightly or wrongly. It just happens that the second 50% of his term is served outside cold iron bars

I'd have a little more sympathy for his case if he had served FULL sentence and then was trying to reintegrate himself into society. Quite surprised the PFA haven't suggested this as an alternative - or at least wait until his appeal/review has been held.

As far as an apology is concerned I've heard his statement today and can't say I'm surprised that his legal team have told him to be quiet and not apologize; today's statement went some way to an apology for the effects of the incident but still not an apology for something HE didn't think he did.

I'm undecided as to his guilt or innocence but just for a moment let's assume he is innocent - how would a full apology affect his appeal case? Not very well I suspect

[super_realist]

If he's adamant he didn't do it, then I don't think we should expect him to apologise for something he claims he didn't do.

OK, by the letter of the law, he's a convicted r***ist, but did anyone have similar disdain for any other convicted criminals who also protested their innocence? Birmingham 6, Guildford 4 etc.

There seems to be zero consistency in this particular case, and an extreme over-reaction and faux-fence going on.........yet again.
If Evans was a plumber, would anyone care, it's as if being a footballer should mean he behaves better than anyone else. If anything, this is exactly the sort of thing i'd expect from a footballer, surely they represent precisely the sort of person we shouldn't have any respect for.

[skiddy]

hes a little inconsisten when he mentions mob rule. Not once did he ask his pals to stop ruining the victims life or ask to put the website down.

[beninho]

If he was a plumber of course it wouldn't gather the same attention, but he isn't so it's a nonsensical comparison. He is a high profile sportsman. He cost a club 4 million and was an international footballer. He isn't a random nobody. He is hoping to walk back into a pretty lucrative career and whether he likes it or not a role model for people. He will have fans singing his name and wearing his name on shirts. But even if he was a plumber, builder or traffic warden it's hard to get another job with a r*** criminal record I'm sure.

I'm agree with davie though, I'd have liked him to have served his whole sentance before being allowed back to play, and I'd have this has the same with any professional footballer or sportsperson. But I don't know how it stands in employment law. But then budget caps are included in sports which must be against some laws.

[super_realist]

If he was a plumber of course it wouldn't gather the same attention, but he isn't so it's a nonsensical comparison. He is a high profile sportsman. He cost a club 4 million and was an international footballer. He isn't a random nobody.  He is hoping to walk back into a pretty lucrative career and whether he likes it or not a role model for people. He will have fans singing his name and wearing his name on shirts. But even if he was a plumber, builder or traffic warden it's hard to get another job with a r*** criminal record I'm sure.

I'm agree with davie though, I'd have liked him to have served his whole sentance before being allowed back to play, and I'd have this has the same with any professional footballer or sportsperson. But I don't know how it stands in employment law. But then budget caps are included in sports which must be against some laws.

Ben, I was responding to the claim that this wasn't about football. Obviously it is.

I agree though about the tawdry incarceration. Surely something like "cuddling" should carry a full term in the clink?

[navyblueshorts]

Mac. Maybe, but you haven't done the neurological experiments to prove that one way or the other and nor has anyone else as far as I'm aware. In addition to that, it would be implicit that Evans' mate would be guilty by default as well and given how we treat alcohol in society at large, even if we don't get peed, it would be a ridiculous scenario to try to police in most towns/cities every night.

JAS. I'm not convinced r@pe is a black/white thing in the sense that all r@pes are, or should be considered to be, as bad as each other. Sentencing is always going to vary quite a bit if that's the case. Agree that, in general, sentencing for r@pe seems inadequate in a lot of cases. Hand-in-hand with any changes though, has to be the implicit corollary that anyone making demonstrably false accusations of r@pe can expect to be held at Her Majesty's pleasure for a similar length of time.

[navyblueshorts]

I am a professional chartered engineer. If I was found guilty of committing r***, I would not expect my previous employer to take me back when I got out of prison. I'm not sure that my institution would allow me to retain my chartership. Everyone is saying that Ched Evans is being made unemployable. That is not true. He could get a job with a company that will employ convicts, out of the public eye. Maybe gardening, shelf stacking - I don't know. He could do some community work, teach kids football, show that he is trying to reintegrate in society, at least until his review has been heard. If he is then found not guilty, he can go back to his former career. If not, if he keeps his nose clean he might be able to work his way back in a couple of years.

Interesting take GM. I'm sure you're right about your Charter - that's a professional body and has standards, which I'm sure r@pe would fall foul of. Evans isn't allowed to work with minors etc as result of the conviction but there's nothing in our justice system that formally supports your other suggestions. It may be people's opinions that he should pursue other options (and he may yet have to), but opinions are all it is. Just to muddy the waters, I wonder if he has, or will have, any sort of case for discrimination?

[navyblueshorts]

hes a little inconsisten when he mentions mob rule. Not once did he ask his pals to stop ruining the victims life or ask to put the website down.

They aren't his pals and there's nothing wrong with the web site, at least, apparently there's nothing wrong legally.

[navyblueshorts]

...I'm agree with davie though, I'd have liked him to have served his whole sentance before being allowed back to play, and I'd have this has the same with any professional footballer or sportsperson. But I don't know how it stands in employment law. But then budget caps are included in sports which must be against some laws.

It won't work. Our legal system allows for early release and doesn't stipulate a sportsperson can't go back to playing. Until that stipulation is enshrined legally, it's mob justice what's happening. Pretty clear cut and pretty ugly. You don't have to like it, but that's the way it is.

[beninho]

Big fat Steve Bruce now talking about the case, i Know he was asked the question, but is it really his place to start talking about the case. Its all well and good having an opinion, but people in the public eye should be careful.

[navyblueshorts]

Big fat Steve Bruce now talking about the case, i Know he was asked the question, but is it really his place to start talking about the case. Its all well and good having an opinion, but people in the public eye should be careful.

Yeah. A bit dull of him really. Public figures on both sides of the fence need to stop answering questions or volunteering quotes on this.

[beninho]

anyway moving away from Ched. All this going on in France is a bit mental. Could this be a trigger to things kicking off throughout parts of Europe? I know Germany had some anti immigration rallies recently. It seems that European countries have more far right or far left groups looking to take some action, while in the UK, we have mainly apathy to what is going on.

[GunsGerms]

Looks like the two suspects have now been killed.

[super_realist]

Looks like the two suspects have now been killed.

Shame, could have done with bringing back the guillotine for people like that.

[super_realist]

Big fat Steve Bruce now talking about the case, i Know he was asked the question, but is it really his place to start talking about the case. Its all well and good having an opinion, but people in the public eye should be careful.

Got no problem with people in the public eye voicing their opinion. What's wrong with having an opinion? Doesn't make him a bad person.

We always talk about how interviews are boring.

IMagine how it might go in future.

"How did your game go today?"

"Well, I'd rather not talk about it, I'm in the public eye so offering an opinion might lead some people to get the wrong idea about what I thought about the game"

[kwinigolfer]

Something completely different.

"The crooked policeman's double life as a gangster was unveiled as a result of his decision to drive the Ferrari to King's Heath police station."

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-birmingham-30710852

No sh1t.

[navyblueshorts]

Something completely different.

"The crooked policeman's double life as a gangster was unveiled as a result of his decision to drive the Ferrari to King's Heath police station."

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-birmingham-30710852

No sh1t.

What a cretin. Bit like Richard Pryor in one of the Superman films I think- Lex Luthor saying "We'll never catch him unless he does something really dumb" at which point Pryor zooms into the company car park in a Ferrari.

[navyblueshorts]

Big fat Steve Bruce now talking about the case, i Know he was asked the question, but is it really his place to start talking about the case. Its all well and good having an opinion, but people in the public eye should be careful.

Got no problem with people in the public eye voicing their opinion. What's wrong with having an opinion? Doesn't make him a bad person.

We always talk about how interviews are boring.

IMagine how it might go in future.

"How did your game go today?"

"Well, I'd rather not talk about it, I'm in the public eye so offering an opinion might lead some people to get the wrong idea about what I thought about the game"

Specious point really. Bruce was talking 'off topic' on a contentious issue, not about his team's last football match - something non-controversial, without legal possibilities and which he is eminently qualified to comment on.

[super_realist]

Something completely different.

"The crooked policeman's double life as a gangster was unveiled as a result of his decision to drive the Ferrari to King's Heath police station."

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-birmingham-30710852

No sh1t.

What a cretin. Bit like Richard Pryor in one of the Superman films I think- Lex Luthor saying "We'll never catch him unless he does something really dumb" at which point Pryor zooms into the company car park in a Ferrari.

must have thought he was Sonny Crocket or Magnum PI. What a quarter-wit.

Must have been funny when he phoned up his insurance company. "So Mr Iqbal, what does a Ferrari owner do for a living?"

[super_realist]

Big fat Steve Bruce now talking about the case, i Know he was asked the question, but is it really his place to start talking about the case. Its all well and good having an opinion, but people in the public eye should be careful.

Got no problem with people in the public eye voicing their opinion. What's wrong with having an opinion? Doesn't make him a bad person.

We always talk about how interviews are boring.

IMagine how it might go in future.

"How did your game go today?"

"Well, I'd rather not talk about it, I'm in the public eye so offering an opinion might lead some people to get the wrong idea about what I thought about the game"

Specious point really. Bruce was talking 'off topic' on a contentious issue, not about his team's last football match - something non-controversial, without legal possibilities and which he is eminently qualified to comment on.

Doesn't matter if it was contentious. If he's asked about it, there's no reason he shouldn't offer an opinion? It's not like he said "Yeah, the boys are training well, now, this Ched Evans business......"

Loads of people "in the public eye" are talking about it, Question Time, Radio Phone ins, TV etc etc.

Personally, I couldn't care less really, but it doesn't mean people shouldn't talk about it if asked.

[beninho]

15 dead in Paris. 2000 murdered recently by Boko Haram in Nigeria. Shame that is not getting anywhere near enough coverage.

[pedro]

"Je suis Charlie.... "
Quote: various US and UK media.


No you're not because your too chicken to show the Charlie Hebdo cartoons!

[kwinigolfer]

I thought the "Je Suis Ahmed" tag was more relevant and poignant.

[McLaren]

Navy

"Mac. Maybe, but you haven't done the neurological experiments to prove that one way or the other and nor has anyone else as far as I'm aware. "

I agree, but knowing if the human brain can still function sufficiently to perform informed consent while under the influence of alcohol is an important question?

[super_realist]

I don't imagine there is a single person in the world who has had informed consent 100% of the time. Drunk or not.

[Davie]

Friday night devil's advocate....

I wonder how many people would have been "nous sommes Charlie" if they'd been peddling holocaust denial cartoons instead.

#JustSayin

[super_realist]

Personally I wouldn't care if someone made a cartoon about the Holocaust, Hillsborough, Glasgow Bin Lorry etc, the fact remains it's still just a cartoon.

Although, the important distinction is that the holocaust, hillsborough etc were actual events and not just fairytales like religious based "faux-fence". There are still survivors and people affected, whereas drawing a depiction of a something centuries old, which probably never ever even existed, much like Jesus, is a little bit different.

Still, draw your cartoons, you might get a few offended people, but I seriously doubt anyone would go on a shooting rampage because of it.

Publishing a cartoon might not be worth dying for, but it's certainly not worth killing because it was.

[Davie]

Frankly I'm not surprised you wouldn't be offended by any of those s_r .. but even you must admit that plenty would be - and in some cases not without due cause.

As I understand it though there is a fundemental tenet in Islam that the prophet must not be depicted in any way - I don't think any Islamic publications have any pictorial representations of their prophet.

Not only to depict him, but in a less than favourable way is just rubbing salt in their wounds.

No I'm not defending them - I have similar views as you on any religion - but I can understand the anger and the provocation they must have felt.

I just see a little hypocrisy in the situation that #NousSommesCharlie because of this whereas I can imagine the uproar in the liberal media if anyone would dare to publish cartoons of Holocaust, Glasgow Bin Laden, Hillsborough etc.

[super_realist]

I don't care what tenet's there are in Islam, like ALL religions, they is no reason to believe any of it, far less follow it.
Like I said, the events we mention are ACTUAL events, in living memory and very different from a fictitious "prophet". I'm sure I say plenty of things that people might find offensive, my answer would be "so bloody what". No one has a right not to be offended, not even nutcase religious maniacs, and for me to take offence at a cartoon would make me a massive hypocrite.

Fine, if you're infantile enough to be offended about a bloody picture, then vent your synthetic outrage in an appropriate manner, or better still, act like an adult and ignore it.

I could start to take offence at people wearing straw hat's if I like. Could I react if I saw someone wearing one?

Of all the people I've heard on media this week, attempting to justify why Islamic people have offence to depictions of their "prophet" I haven't heard one that has been convincing.

To be offended by a picture is simply a demonstration of how unbelievably stupid and childish a religion is, and to take the reaction that people will do is nothing short of madness.

[Mad for Chelsea]

as SR mentions, there's a fundamental difference with the Holocaust and Hillsborough, which is that they're actual events which happened. As for Bin Laden, Les Guignols used to regularly have a puppet of him in their shows, usually making jokes which I'm sure many would have found offensive. I'm sure you can find some footage on Google if you like.

As someone living in France it's hard to express in words just how affected the whole country has been by these attacks. I think you need to understand just how fundamental freedom of expression is to the French psyche: they probably "get away" with publishing much more offensive stuff than you could in the UK, certainly than in the US. Freedom in general, and freedom of expression in particular, is in a way the very cornerstone of our Republic. On a positive note, the outpouring of support, and just general positive emotion, from the French public, has been wonderful (sure you get the odd idiot, but they're in a very small minority).

I tend to side with SR that if you can get offended by anything in the name of your religion, yours must be a pretty flimsy faith. I however differ with SR in that I believe there is such a thing as "respect for religion", but for me that simply means you have to respect everyone's right to believe in what they want to believe in.

Sorry if some of this post comes over a bit sharp, it's been a very emotional few days...

[kwinigolfer]

Not sharp at all.
I was in Manhattan for 9/11 and subsequently insisted on taking my family to my wife's church, first "voluntary" visit to church for decades - and not for religion, just for community, the comfort of appreciation for each other.

Many US commentators have made snarky comments about "the French" these past few days, probably egged on by Rumsfeld and Cheney going on about "old Europe" - the intelligence and terrorism experts have been quick to praise the expertise of the French in this regard.

[super_realist]

as SR mentions, there's a fundamental difference with the Holocaust and Hillsborough, which is that they're actual events which happened. As for Bin Laden, Les Guignols used to regularly have a puppet of him in their shows, usually making jokes which I'm sure many would have found offensive. I'm sure you can find some footage on Google if you like.

As someone living in France it's hard to express in words just how affected the whole country has been by these attacks. I think you need to understand just how fundamental freedom of expression is to the French psyche: they probably "get away" with publishing much more offensive stuff than you could in the UK, certainly than in the US. Freedom in general, and freedom of expression in particular, is in a way the very cornerstone of our Republic. On a positive note, the outpouring of support, and just general positive emotion, from the French public, has been wonderful (sure you get the odd idiot, but they're in a very small minority).

I tend to side with SR that if you can get offended by anything in the name of your religion, yours must be a pretty flimsy faith. I however differ with SR in that I believe there is such a thing as "respect for religion", but for me that simply means you have to respect everyone's right to believe in what they want to believe in.

Sorry if some of this post comes over a bit sharp, it's been a very emotional few days...

MFC. I've got a respect for people to believe whatever they want, and I think we've been through this before, but I've got absolutely no respect for the contents of that belief, and I've nothing for contempt and ridicule for that belief should it A) Be based on zero facts and no evidence and B) When it impacts or attempts to get a foothold in society.

In regards to a flimsy faith, all faith is flimsy by definition. Faith is indistinguishable from gullibility, and is an excuse for not having a reason. If you had a reason, you don't need faith, that clearly goes for all religion as none of them have a good reason to believe. So, you can of course believe what you want, but don't expect respect for the contents of that belief. Do  you respect the beliefs of someone who believes they've been abducted by aliens, who believes in bigfoot, or who believes in Thor, Poseidon, Zeus etc? Of course you don't.

If religious people kept their hysterically stupid and indefensible beliefs to themselves, whether that be in their head, confined to their home or place or worship, then they can believe in universe creating pixies for all I care (which is just a valid a claim as ALL religion) .
Baseless beliefs don't have a place in society, politics or education. They are a private matter. I don't have any respect for beliefs which are indistinguishable from fairy tales. How could I?

[Mad for Chelsea]

about the #JesuisCharlie movement:

http://www.marieclaire.fr/,lettre-ouverte-a-ceux-qui-proclament-je-ne-suis-pas-charlie-et-a-ceux-qui-les-likent,731256.asp

In French, but basically explains that to say "Je suis Charlie" isn't to say that you agree with all that the magazine published, or even that you particularly approve of the content. It's to say that they have the absolute right to publish it. Freedom of expression doesn't mean freedom from criticism, in fact it goes hand in hand with the freedom to criticise. If you disagree with something, then by all rights express your disagreement, explain why you find such-and-such offensive or whatever, debate is good, debate should be encouraged, because to shut off debate leads to resentment, and violence.

@Davie. There have actually been lawsuits filed against Charlie Hebdo in the past, but the rulings were always in their favour, i.e. that what they were publishing was OK from a legal stand point. And there is, as has been mentioned, a limit to freedom of expression. Sure, in France, you can get away with pretty much anything, and more than you could get away with in the UK (certainly in the US), but that limit exists. Holocaust denial, for instance, is the wrong side of that limit, as would be characterising all Muslims as terrorists.

@SR. As you say we've been over this before. I would say that you too often leave out the cultural element of religion. While I agree that all religious beliefs are stupid and unfounded in fact, they're not unfounded in culture, and that to me makes a difference. But let's not go there again.

[Mad for Chelsea]

and on a slightly lighter note, because we all need a laugh now and again, here's a wonderful example of (non religious) stupidity, which hopefully doesn't offend anyone

http://dailycurrant.com/2015/01/09/sarah-palin-why-do-muslims-hate-charlie-brown/

[super_realist]

about the #JesuisCharlie movement:

http://www.marieclaire.fr/,lettre-ouverte-a-ceux-qui-proclament-je-ne-suis-pas-charlie-et-a-ceux-qui-les-likent,731256.asp

In French, but basically explains that to say "Je suis Charlie" isn't to say that you agree with all that the magazine published, or even that you particularly approve of the content. It's to say that they have the absolute right to publish it. Freedom of expression doesn't mean freedom from criticism, in fact it goes hand in hand with the freedom to criticise. If you disagree with something, then by all rights express your disagreement, explain why you find such-and-such offensive or whatever, debate is good, debate should be encouraged, because to shut off debate leads to resentment, and violence.

@Davie. There have actually been lawsuits filed against Charlie Hebdo in the past, but the rulings were always in their favour, i.e. that what they were publishing was OK from a legal stand point. And there is, as has been mentioned, a limit to freedom of expression. Sure, in France, you can get away with pretty much anything, and more than you could get away with in the UK (certainly in the US), but that limit exists. Holocaust denial, for instance, is the wrong side of that limit, as would be characterising all Muslims as terrorists.

@SR. As you say we've been over this before. I would say that you too often leave out the cultural element of religion. While I agree that all religious beliefs are stupid and unfounded in fact, they're not unfounded in culture, and that to me makes a difference. But let's not go there again.

Something which is culturally grounded is almost entirely irrelevant and certainly doesn't add gravitas to the belief.

It used to be culturally acceptable to believe that owning slaves was just great, subjugation of women was normal and a belief the earth was flat were thought cultural norms, but I'm not going to respect something due to an argument from popularity or an argument from history. If anything, we've got even more reason not to hold beliefs based on cultural heritage, because as time and science progress we find less and less reason to accept said beliefs. Beliefs based on culture and not fact as more open to criticism and ridicule than almost anything else.
Cultural beliefs are indistinguishable from believing in Leprechauns and Santa Claus. Devoid of any respect.

[Mad for Chelsea]

I don't think you understood my point, but like I said, this is something we've been over before, countless times, and I don't think we'll ever agree on everything, even if we agree on the essential. To summarise: religion is silly, people can believe what they like, any belief should be open to criticism/mockery, religion becomes a problem when people do bad things in its name or try to impose their beliefs on other people.

What I'm trying to say is that there are reasons, perhaps not "good" reasons, but certainly understandable reasons, why religion has persisted throughout human history. I do think if religion as a concept were "invented" today, it wouldn't persist (it's somewhat telling that we haven't had a new "mainstream" religion pretty much since Islam), which means the only reason it does persist is for cultural reasons.

Will there come a time when religion no longer exists? My scientific mind would like to think so, and I can certainly see it happening, but I can also see it not happening (well, obviously when the Universe no longer exists religion won't either, but you get my point...), so hard for me to make a definitive call either way on that one.

And look, I've made another post on the topic, when I was trying to stop this discussion. In the interests of fairness, you should probably reply to this one if you want to, but after that let's try to draw the line under this one, eh?

[super_realist]

Yes, there are reasons why it has persisted, but I don't consider them good reasons and they are not reasons as to why the beliefs should be respected any more than someone who believes Thor makes thunder.

The age of a belief, the cultural standing, the number of people who believe it are irrelevant to whether or not it should be respected.
The only thing that matters as to a belief and whether or not it should be respected is whether it's true. Given that religious beliefs are impossible to prove, and that by definition means that the believer doesn't care whether it is true or not, and is exactly why I don't and cannot respect it.
If you accept one belief without reason, then you can't distinguish between any other similar claim, and if you are being consistent, you have to believe everything posited, and that simply can't command the respect of anyone.

[Mad for Chelsea]

technically, we KNOW Thor doesn't make thunder, because we know what does make thunder. We don't KNOW there isn't a God, because it isn't something we can prove scientifically

Then again, Jesus prophesised the end of the world, while Thor promised to rid the world of ice giants. The world is still going fairly strong, but I don't see any ice giants around, do you?

What it is possible to prove of course is that the Bible is a load of codswallop. We KNOW God didn't create the World in 6 days, we KNOW about Evolution, etc. And the further our scientific understanding of the world progresses, the less there is a need for God to explain that which we can't (yet) explain. For instance, someone once asked me about the Big Bang, and how do you get that out of basically, nothing? Isn't that proof of divine intervention? Nope. Turns out "nothing" is a physically highly unstable state, from which small bubbles of "something" will appear pretty much all the time (in layman's terms). Just needed one of those to expand sufficiently quickly, and voilà! a Universe!

whoops, there I go again. Then again, the history of the Universe is something that's always fascinated me...

[Mad for Chelsea]

now on a completed unrelated note, but since it's reasonably topical what with the decision in California, what are people's thoughts on foie gras?

As a Frenchman it's hard to understand the great big hoo-hah about it all, so would be interested in canvassing other people's views on this one...

Anyway, going out for a while now, so don't get offended if I don't reply to any posts in the next couple of hours

[super_realist]

technically, we KNOW Thor doesn't make thunder, because we know what does make thunder. We don't KNOW there isn't a God, because it isn't something we can prove scientifically

Then again, Jesus prophesised the end of the world, while Thor promised to rid the world of ice giants. The world is still going fairly strong, but I don't see any ice giants around, do you?

What it is possible to prove of course is that the Bible is a load of codswallop. We KNOW God didn't create the World in 6 days, we KNOW about Evolution, etc. And the further our scientific understanding of the world progresses, the less there is a need for God to explain that which we can't (yet) explain. For instance, someone once asked me about the Big Bang, and how do you get that out of basically, nothing? Isn't that proof of divine intervention? Nope. Turns out "nothing" is a physically highly unstable state, from which small bubbles of "something" will appear pretty much all the time (in layman's terms). Just needed one of those to expand sufficiently quickly, and voilà! a Universe!

whoops, there I go again. Then again, the history of the Universe is something that's always fascinated me...

Yes, I don't know there isn't a god, , but I don't know there isn't an invisible pet dragon living in your house either, but that doesn't mean you should live your life as if there is. The point at which to believe something is when there is demonstrable and sufficient evidence for it.

If we don't know something, we say "I don't know" we don't say "God did it."

I agree with the rest of what you say though.

Couldn't care less about Foie Gras, I eat meat, although I don't eat Foie Gras because the consistency and ingredients repulse me, pretty sure if we knew what our meat went through before it got to our plate we wouldn't eat it.

[beninho]

There used to be a big thing about eating veal, I've eaten it. It's nice, not sure if people get het up on it still though.

Anyway, I'm a Wycombe fan, last year we stayed up on the last day just, with 51 points. If we win today we have 50 already. I bloody love football again.

[pedro]

Anyway, I'm a Wycombe fan, last year we stayed up on the last day just, with 51 points. If we win today we have 50 already. I bloody love football again.

So you're saying there IS a God?

[super_realist]

Anyway, I'm a Wycombe fan, last year we stayed up on the last day just, with 51 points. If we win today we have 50 already. I bloody love football again.

So you're saying there IS a God?

[beninho]

There certainly a football or even sports gods. No arguments on that one. No such thing as coincidences in football either. If we lose its because I have done something different to the last win.

[navyblueshorts]

Navy

"Mac. Maybe, but you haven't done the neurological experiments to prove that one way or the other and nor has anyone else as far as I'm aware. "

I agree, but knowing if the human brain can still function sufficiently to perform informed consent while under the influence of alcohol is an important question?

Yeah, I'd say so, potentially.

Friday night devil's advocate....

I wonder how many people would have been "nous sommes Charlie" if they'd been peddling holocaust denial cartoons instead.

#JustSayin

Interesting point Davie. Not sure. Then again, I'm not sure any Jewish Parisiennes would be machine gunning the rest of the population in response though.

[SmithersJones]

now on a completed unrelated note, but since it's reasonably topical what with the decision in California, what are people's thoughts on foie gras?

As a Frenchman it's hard to understand the great big hoo-hah about it all, so would be interested in canvassing other people's views on this one...

Anyway, going out for a while now, so don't get offended if I don't reply to any posts in the next couple of hours

MFC - I knew you lived in France but assumed from your posts you were a British ex-pat. Bravo, monsieur.

As for foie gras, it's without doubt the single most fantastic thing we've ever produced to eat as a race. Shame it's been sanitised as much as it has, though it remains awesome. We are at the top of the food chain, I've never felt we should apologise for that. I'm eagerly looking forward to my skiing holiday next month already, but you've just reminded me about Rossini, thanks!

[Sponsored content]