Spittin’ Image?

Liana... If one's mind is too open is there not a danger that one's brain will ooze out of ones ears? *Another of my 'bad' truths*

I dont think so Gerry... however over analysing one's own bollockological theories may have a similar effect... Thank you, and goodnight. :o)

Yes, I do agree that closed minds are a disaster and am glad that, despite apparent differences, a lot of people share that view.

I am an a'rse *hopes use of r is correct this time*

hm, A mind that is afraid it might end up being too open gradually acquires the reputation of being a mind full of bad truths.

Well I agree with you, politicians are indeed the same everywhere.

I read a report from Iraq last week in which several Iraqi conscripts said they were forced to confront the allies with Baath party officials holding guns to their backs. They said they were glad the allies were going to remove Hussein and fired their guns over the heads of the opposition to fool the Baath party. I'm sick to death of all the rubbish about WMD and whether the war was justified/legal/necesary or whatever else all the peaceniks use to insist they are right about the war. How many of you have actually lived under the yoke of oppression and sadistic cruelty? I suspect not fucking one of you, but whenever someone else grabs the bull by the horns and faces down a bully and succeeds, you all benefit and keep your mouths shut. I'm glad Hussein is gone. I'm glad his sons are dead. I'm sorry decent folk had to die in the process, but that's the price of allowing an arsehole to get above his station in the first place. I don't give a dogs dick about David Kelly. I think Bush is a ******. I think Blair is a thinly disguised tory. I think his wife is ugly. I hate the royals. I.... I do agree about politicians however, they are all the same. (That means those on BOTH sides of whatever fences there are)

I broadly agree with you Missi. The real comedy lies in having to choose one bunch of comedians over the rest of the liars, dreamers and schemers and then vote for them in the sure and certain knowledge that they will break their promises, take absolutely no notice of what the electorate really wants and continually remind us how lucky we are to have such a wonderful Western democracy!

I happened to turn the TV on last evening and caught a few minutes of “The Great British Test” before I discovered “The 100 Greatest Films” on Channel Four. A self-assured female “somebody” seemed to be saying that British people (and Germans) had lost their ‘free spirit’ and were content to queue, play by the rules and be generally ‘civilised’ while others, such as the Italians, were more inclined to ignore the rules and beggar the consequences. The example she used to illustrate this point was the holiday habits of the Germans, English and Italians. The Germans, it seems, get up first and reserve a sunbed by leaving their towel on it and go to breakfast. The English arise next and noticing the towel think “Oh well, maybe tomorrow.” and go to breakfast. The Italians get up, while the rest are eating, throw the towels into the pool, and skip breakfast. This made me wonder whether ‘Democracy’ is really a function of the people rather than government. Is it just that eventually people become so ‘civilised’ that they are willing to put up with never getting a sunbed?

yeah, both sides of whatever fences ... and that's a pretty strange way of making a point A Question, not that I don't get it, but "towel", "sunbeds"? is there any other way to say what you obviously want to say regarding the measure of civilised and non civilised people? I'm interested in the measure of civilisation you see.

I busy watching Jeff Hoon lie on Jonathan Dimbleby but the question I was trying to pose, Nicoletta, was about the effectiveness of modern Western Democracy in representing the people.

I wasn't implying that Mr Hoon was laid on Mr Dimbleby :-)

The effectiveness could be worse dear A Question, but the question is not how much worse, but how much better.

It occurs to me that “Is it just that eventually people become so ‘civilised’ that they are willing to put up with never getting a sunbed?” also begs the question “Do people need to be ’trained’ in some way - perhaps in accepting that, like dictators, governments must do unpopular things which they say are for the good of the people - to have an effective democracy? The USA seems to believe that they can impose a ‘Western-style Democracy’ on the people of Iraq and make it work - but is it really that easy to teach people to compromise?

It is weird how things all seem to tie in isn't it, even at the personal level. I mean, marriage is like democracy, if you're talking about learning to compromise. Polygomy is the thing with some Muslims. I wouldn't mind polygamy if it meant I could go off and do my own thing while she did the washing up. Polygamous marriages, however, are perhaps like mini dictatorships. Bearing this in mind, I wonder sometimes if Blair hasn't got another little wifey or two tucked away somewhere - going by his desire to be dictatorial.

Oh they seem quite compromised already A nother, compromised on dictatorships and male chauvinism, on a religious type government and on other customs which I'm reluctant to name. I think they are the spittin' image of Islam.

You set me off thinking, Emma. Since polygomy always seems to be one man with many wives: won't that mean lots of lonely men? I mean there must be many men without a wife if there are some men with lots. Perhaps they are in dire need of compromise after all :-)

if only they didn't have the right to separate from their wives as often and as easily as they want.

Perhaps the men without wives are joining Al Quaeda...but no, if you are without a wife, there are all those funny 'rules' about marrying your brother's wife if he dies etc, so they sort of circulate.

George, I agree totally with everything you said. Politicians are all assholes. If they aren't when they go in, it only takes about 2 days and they are full-fledged assholes. Money and power can corrupt any of them quickly. Bush did go into this term fully meaning to clear up what he father fcuked up. He had every intention from day #1. Every politician in this world can be bought or bullied by another or all the lobbyist groups. It is sad when we have to vote for the lesser of two evils.

I have been a little flippant on this thread. We must realise that marrying one's husband's brother was probably the alternative to poverty etc. Jewish laws were similar. The bible contains a great deal of interesting stuff re marriage...take this info. from the Lutheran's for example: > 1. Marriage consists of one man and one or more women (Gen >4:19, 4:23, 26:34, 28:9, 29:26-30, 30:26, 31:17, 32:22, 36:2, 36:10, 37:2, >Ex. 21:10, Judges 8:30, 1 Sam 1:2, 25:43, 27:3, 30:5, 30:18, 2 Sam 2:2, >3:2-5, 1 Chron 3:1-3, 4:5, 8:8, 14:3, 2 Chron 11:21, 13:21, 24:3). > > 2. Nothing prevents a man from taking on concubines in addition >to the wife or wives he may already have (Gen 25:6, Judges 8:31, 2 Sam 5:13, >1 Kings 11:3, 1 Chron 3:9, 2 Chron 11:21, Dan 5:2-3). > > 3. A man might chose any woman he wants for his wife (Gen 6:2, >Deut 21:11), provided only that she is not already another man's wife (Lev >18:14-16, Deut. 22:30) or his [half-]sister (Lev 18:11, 20:17), nor the >mother (Lev 20:14) or the sister (Lev 18:18) of a woman who is already his >wife. The concept of a woman giving her consent to being married is foreign >to the Biblical mindset. > > 4. If a woman cannot be proven to be a virgin at the time of >marriage, she shall be stoned (Deut 22:13-21). > > 5. A rapist must marry his victim (Ex. 22:16, Deut. 22:28-29) - >unless she was already a fiancé, in which case he should be put to death if >he raped her in the country, but both of them killed if he raped her in town >(Deut. 22:23-27). > > 6. If a man dies childless, his brother must marry the widow >(Gen 38:6-10, Deut 25:5-10, Mark 12:19, Luke 20:28). > > 7. Women marry the man of their father's choosing (Gen. 24:4, >Josh.15:16-17, Judges 1:12-13, 12:9, 21:1, 1 Sam 17:25, 18:19, 1 Kings 2:21, >1 Chron 2:35, Jer 29:6, Dan 11:17). > > 8. Women are the property of their father until married and >their husband after that (Ex. 20:17, 22:17, Deut. 22:24, Mat 22:25). > > 9. The value of a woman might be approximately seven years' >work (Gen 29:14-30). > > 10. Inter-faith marriages are prohibited (Gen 24:3, 28:1, 28:6, >Num 25:1-9, Ezra 9:12, Neh 10:30, 2 Cor 6:14). > > 11. Divorce is forbidden (Deut 22:19, Matt 5:32, 19:9, Mark >10:9-12, Luke 16:18, Rom 7:2, 1 Cor 7:10-11, 7:39). > > 12. Better to not get married at all - although marriage is not >a sin (Matt 19:10, I Cor 7:1, 7:27-28, 7:32-34, 7:38).

This is why it is so farcical when the politicians in America start quoting the bible with regard to marriage. When the protestants threw out religion, they had no reference points for guidance on such matters and ended up going back to the plain text of the bible unconsidered and interpreted.

"politicians are indeed the same everywhere" Right-on comment sounds good, does it not. Independent, rebellious, cool, anarchic 'n' all that.... Hmmm.. Lets think about it for 30 seconds beyond the cliched sound bite. Erm.. They are really not the same all over are they. Common regurgitated nonsense which for reason beyond me usually passes unchallenged. Who are the brainwashed ones? Anyway, who would you prefer accountants, judges, traffic wardens? *deafening silence*

Gosh, Emma, Jude will be proud of you :-) *notes that most are Old Test*

Is there a problem 1legspider?

.

I think that most Islamic law pertaining to marriage actually stems from the Old Testament and Muslims are probably the only ones who have stuck to these practices. I was impressed by Emma's Biblical research but she made me smile with her "When the protestants threw out religion .." :-) To be realistic there is not that much difference between Protestants and Catholics and both probably ignore most of the Old Testament whenever possible. I’m not sure how polygamy came to be illegal (except in America where it was a reaction to the Mormons) and generally replaced by monogamy but I’m fairly certain it will have had more to do with lawyers than clergy.

butchers, plumbers or uddertakers?

or do you prefer D.(dependent)L.(loyal)U.(unfashionable).O(orderly). so choose: I.R.C.A. OR D.L.U.O. suit yourself 1legspider. :)

what is an uddertaker?

Not aimed at you specifically Nicoletta, but to the general mood of the thread.... for me it is just tedium to slag off everything in sight without offering anything vaguely constructive..

I see, ..vaguely...... if only the same people were voting for different people.

>> accountants, judges, traffic wardens...butchers, plumbers or uddertakers << ....'are indeed the same everywhere' An uddertaker, Nicoletta, is a surgeon who specialises in breast removal. (Sorry, couldn't resist it, though I know those operations are awful and traumatic for the patient)

Even the prospect of such operations are aweful and traumatic, thank you for explaining dear Mississippi.

correction *Even the prospect of such operations is awful and traumatic*

I'm not sure it's useful to talk in terms of good and bad truths. If you are going to differentiate between truths it's probably more important to sort into ‘local’ and ‘universal’. Local truths being ones that relate to where you are at the moment both physically and emotionally. So ‘what goes up must come down’ is a local truth as it would (probably) not be true in most parts of the universe. Local truths depend a lot on where and how you live and are relative - where as Universal truths are constant. Buddhism often contrasts local and universal truths and so it might say that coal is black but not Black. The first black is a relative term which denotes lack of light and colour but the second is the universal Black which, like Absolute Zero in physics, is unattainable no matter how close you get to it. Mistaking local truths for absolute truths is the root of many errors.

It’s also worth noting that bad filing can cause truth problems. If, say you were in the pub, someone comes in and says “You’ll never believe it but Fred has just been arrested for beating his wife!” Now you know a Fred from the pub who is violent when he’s had a few and you think ‘Not a surprise to me’. It may well be that it is some other Fred but because it fits in with the high probability you jump to the conclusion that it’s the one you suspect. This is often compounded by you telling others about Fred and then getting your suspicions confirmed by the echoes of your own story, suitably embroidered. So it’s worth while being extremely careful when you decide where things fit in your version of reality and, as Liana points out, it’s best to strive to keep an open mind - so you can keep an eye on your filing system :-)

Yes of course, it was probably bad taste for me to see some humour in Gerry's post and you request for an explanation.

excuse me, does this mean that an uddertaker is something else? :?

I think it’s worth pointing out that lumping the world’s 1.3 billion Muslims into the same category as the relatively tiny number of Islamic militants and terrorists is a mistake that many bigots are trying hard to foster. The simple fact is that both the terrorists and those they oppose would like to polarise the world into Muslim and non-Muslim. In that respect they are both trying to force us into taking sides on an imaginary issue - the war is not with Islam but with terrorism. If they succeed in uniting the Islamic nations and provoking a jihad then it will probably be the end of society as we know it. If the Muslim’s cut off the oil how long before the wheels of Capitalism grind to a halt? Perhaps the American invasion of Iraq was a practice to see if they could keep the oil flowing in a potentially hostile country - with Saddam and WOMD being a good excuse.

No Nicoletta... I value true independence of thought i.e. one that does not rule out anything and is prepared to react to any circumstance not only with the best data available but with the best will too... One that will not say... I will always vote Tory or I am a Labour man till I die... one that is prepared to support to issue by issue politics... one that happily gives conditional support one day but is prepared to withdraw it tommorow.... one that gives cynics and idealists of any description a wide berth... one that tries to refrain from general bland comments and always challenges received wisdom... one that goes out of their way to challenge their own ideas first... one that is always learning. I don't see much of that around.

and I think that by giving cynics and idealists a wide berth Gerry, you are ruling out things... you cannot say that you do not rule out anything and then follow with that statement. Cynics and idealists have as much to teach you as anyone else.

And more than most.

How can you challenge your own ideas first if you are not independent and anarchic? At the moment you question yourself you actually don't believe in anything you only know you have not found what is worth to believe in, you must rebel against the tyranny of your own misconceptions and this is very cool I must say and very difficult.

Come on Gerry, I think I fit into your definition of missing people.

Yes, Andrea, they are mostly Old Testament, except that Matthew recommends celibacy as preferable to marriage..!! The main point of posting this was to show how connected archaic views of marriage are in religions, like you say A Postle. As for there being no difference between the prots and catholics nowadays in their interpretation of the bible, that's loosely true in terms of congregations, I agree, but the Catholics didn't have licence to interpret the bible on an individual basis (as do the politicians in America). Bigamy became illegal in England in 1604, according to the civil law. In canon law it had been illegal for centuries, probably around the 11th century when all lawyers were clergy.

Do you always talk crap, prophet?

Cynics think everything is crap... and it is true, for them at least... in the world they have constructed... it is. You cannot argue with that, best you can say is that there are other realities and perhaps you need a leap of faith to experience them... anyway if you think that 'nothing really matters' you are not too far away from 'everything matters' in my humble opinion. Idealist usually end up as cynics eventually... their rigid ideas, usually of the form 'we have all the answers if only they' eventually run up against an everchanging reality. Theirs is the path of self-defeat, and ought to be challenged only when they are dangerous. Otherwise let life-learning do it to them. Somewhere along the line somewhere I did start off as an idealist. Now, you see the above... it may be total bollocks, but I did make it up just now... more to the point, I am not afraid to say it and consequently be thought of as a fool today... and yet I reserve my right to change my mind and say something completely different tommorrow irregardless of a personal consequence. Now that is real anarchic thinking.

Thanks for the info, Emma! I'm surprised as I thought religious and state law were the same until Henry VIII. I'm certain that there are a lot of places where the starving would welcome butchers (if they came with their own supply of meat) but I can't think of anywhere that would welcome more politicians. Nicoletta, in spite of Missi’s mammary joke ‘udder’ would never be used to describe the breasts of a human female other than traditionally in crude jokes or seaside postcards. In practice the word udder is used almost exclusively to describe the glands of milkable animals such as cattle and goats [%sig%]

And so you have learned those things which you believe FROM idealists and cynics... they have in effect, taught you. By giving them a wide berth always, you would not be able to speak about cynics and idealists with such authority (whether you are right or wrong is irrelevant). We need to learn why cynics are cynical... to maybe challenge their ideas as well as our own... maybe the very reasons for their cynicism is rooted in truth, maybe we can show them a different and perhaps more valid truth. Dont contradict yourself... Keep an open mind.