JackC

Three things that I can see. 1) What the Pope says goes. 2) If you're not catholic, it's none of your goddamn business. 3) If you are catholic, shut up and tow the f******g line.

So random chance is affirmative action? Then why don't you just call it random chance instead of pulling out contraversial terms like affirmative action? So if I put all the applications I recieve for a job into a big box and blindly pull out one to employ, is that also random chance affirmative action? What about if I sit them all in a room, blindfold myself, spin round 10 times and point? Is that random chance affirmative action? What a complete load of shite.

What do you mean by "take into account"? Surely taking something into account implys that it must weigh on your decision somehow. Isn't the whole point of racial equality the idea that race doesn't influence your decision? There was talk of implementing a positive discrimination plan to boost ethnic minority recruitment in the UK police service. I don't know whether the plan was ever implemented. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6572897.stm Under such a plan, if two job candidates met the required standards, the candidate whose ethnicity is under-represented in the force would be selected. I can see why this might be an appealing way to get greater ethnic recruitment, but it seems like it would be at the expense of implementing a racially biased recruitment policy. I'd prefer to see a strict meritocracy independent of race or gender.

Thanks, yes it does. Automatically, no source should be eliminated. But ultimately, some sources can and I would argue should be eliminated. At the risk of invoking Godwin's Law, should Mein Kampf be kept or discarded as a good source of moral guidance? Suppose you perform a robust analytical and skeptical study of a number of religious texts to ascertain what those texts consider to be good morals. Where does that get you? You still have to put your hard won list of morals through your own internal moral compass to see if they fit. After all, you are the one who has to live with yourself. What happens if they don't fit? Do you discard your own moral compass in favour of the revealed knwoledge of these religions? Or do you stick with what your own moral guidance system tells you? And what have you gained by this tortuous excercise? If you wish to do this as an excercise in rigourous academic study to find out what others believe and maybe why, then great. But as a pragmatic way to gain a set of morals, I think you would be putting in a lot of work, that some of the best minds of the last 2000 years have all failed to conclude, that will probably be overruled by your own internal moral guidance system anyway. On the subject of applying logic and empiricism to a subject that has not been developed using those techniques. Now suppose I do a statistical study of past lottery numbers in the hope of predicting next weeks numbers. As you know, that would be a fruitless excercise because past results have no bearing on future results and the delusion that they do is called the Gamblers Fallacy. Now if I apply logic and empiricism to a philosophy that is inherently illogical and unempirical, would I not run the risk of falling for the philosophical equivalent of the Gamblers Fallacy? I agree completely.

that's why affirmative action is not racist

how? - the racism cannot be proved, only suspected. I'm no lawyer but I think the principle of innocent until proven guilty would apply. But it would be wrong impose a racially biased law because you suspect people of racial bias. The law cannot be above the law. If racism is illegal, racist laws must also be illegal no?

In this case you could well suspect the employer to be guilty of having a racial bais (aka racism). The way to fix this is to address the racism, not impose a rule that says in the event of two candidates being equal in all but race, you must employ people of race X over people of race Y, for that would also be racism.

you're describing affirmative action

The way to get equality is enforce equal and fair treatment, not create more inequality to try and balance the previous inequality. Tackle the root of the problem, don't paint over the symptoms.

Giving women the right to vote was an act of equality. Afirmative action seeks to address an imbalance by creating an opposite imbalance, not by creating equality. If they'd given women two votes to redress the previous imbalance where they had no votes, that would have been afirmative action.

i think perhaps you should stick to the stories in the bible

Erm... since when has religion been robustly analytical or skeptical in its approach to philosophy? The validity or dispution of that assertion is independent of the skills of the individual seeking guidance. The latter can be robustly analytical and skeptical. For historical examples, see Spinoza and Descartes (the latter who was an avowed Roman Catholic). /Marg Ok, I've given it a day now to sink in and I still have no idea what you just said. What assertion? The latter who? Historical examples of what? Is this a cryptic crossword clue?

Erm... since when has religion been robustly analytical or skeptical in its approach to philosophy?

I'm not so sure that religion offers any useful insight into morals. As you point out, Aquinas accepted slavery, then there was the Inquisition and various Witch hunts that have been carried out in the name of God. Even in more modern times, there are many religious philosophies that accept the death penalty, literal "eye for an eye" justice or even support terrorism. On the other side of the coin, the same religions oppose slavery, the death penalty and/or terrorism. In order to make any sense of religious "moral guidance" you have to send every word through your own internal bullshit filter. How can religion offer any special moral guidance when it supports any and every postion you want it to and you have to weed out the crap anyway?

If Allah was supposed to be such and good and peaceful guy, how come his followers are such a bloodthirsty lot? (Middle East) If Buddah was supposed to be such a good and peaceful guy, how come his followers are such a bloodthirsty lot? (China / Cambodia) Right, so if everyone else does it, that makes it OK?

If Jesus was supposed to be such a good and peaceful guy, how come his followers are such a bloodthirsty lot?

Right, so you think a technicality is enough to justify killing people. Jesus must be so proud. Numbers 35:31 Matthew 5:39 But if you want to use the Bible to justify violence, I assume you'll be happy to use Leviticus 20:13 as much as Numbers 35:31.

Right, so you think a technicality is enough to justify killing people. Jesus must be so proud.

Erm... the sixth commandment? So you mean good news for Jews. Right... sorry I forgot you're allowed to fuck the 10 commandments off when you're christian.

Erm... the sixth commandment?

I said that all religions can lead to Trinity...doesn't mean they always do...and I don't know how God works in peoples lives, regardless of their Religion. Again, point = missed.

You do realize you just agreed with my statement that religious belief is not dropping. So how reliable is that study now considering the FACT, (as YOU put it) that we see more and more Religion. You should probably read that again. You appear to have misunderstood Georgerussia's point.

isn't a tithe just another name for a tax? Nah, tithing is voluntary. Of course, one day you'll be judged and sentenced if you don't volunteer, so you damn well better pay up. Now tax is mandatory. Of course, one day you'll be judged and sentenced if you try and avoid that mandate, so you damn well better pay up. See, totally different.

So what should you get for throwing Cruise Missiles at another country's leader?

Yep. You don't let off the henchmen just because the leader got caught. You can bang up Tony Blair and Gordon Brown while you're at it.