This site is not maintained. Click here for the new website of Richard Dawkins.

TalkyMeat's Profile

TalkyMeat's Avatar Joined over 5 years ago
Gender: Male

Latest Discussions Started by TalkyMeat

More Discussions by TalkyMeat

Latest Comments by TalkyMeat

Go to: The Elfish Gene

TalkyMeat's Avatar Jump to comment 6 by TalkyMeat

Personally, I think fantasy RPG's are an awesome thing - compelling, immersive supernatural fantasies that no-one actually expects you to believe to be real. Score!

Mon, 09 Mar 2009 16:27:00 UTC | #334368

Go to: New Bus Campaign

TalkyMeat's Avatar Jump to comment 206 by TalkyMeat

Believing weird stuff for no reason is not a virtue

Sheep get fleeced

Out of previous suggestions I like:

"I prayed for twenty years but received no answer until I prayed with my legs." - Frederick Douglass, escaped slave

The invisible and the nonexistent look remarkably alike

Also the Aussie one made me smile:

Atheism: Sleep in on Sundays

Wed, 14 Jan 2009 16:44:00 UTC | #304640

Go to: Louisiana Creation Bill: Science classes need change

TalkyMeat's Avatar Jump to comment 17 by TalkyMeat

Also, maths teachers should have the academic freedom, should they wish, to advance alternative theories of what two plus two equals.

Wed, 14 Jan 2009 02:29:00 UTC | #303801

Go to: On Human Rights Day, the Center for Inquiry Works to Uphold the Universality of Rights.

TalkyMeat's Avatar Jump to comment 21 by TalkyMeat

j.mills, I like your line of thought.

Wed, 10 Dec 2008 20:30:00 UTC | #285948

Go to: On Human Rights Day, the Center for Inquiry Works to Uphold the Universality of Rights.

TalkyMeat's Avatar Jump to comment 18 by TalkyMeat

So, how precisely are these courts going to be banned? Daily Mail headline-writers like to make it sound like they exist because British law has bent over backwards to make special provisions and exceptions to accomodate them, and of course, if that were the case, shutting them down would just be a matter of ceasing to do so; but the problem is, it just ain't so. Legally, they (at least those actually recognised by British law) are constituted as Arbitration Tribunals, which have been part of British law for some time (the law they currently operate under is the Arbitration Act of 1996, but I don't know if that is a successor to any previous law), and there are plenty of Arbitration Tribunals around that have nothing to do with any religion. For instance, the London Borough of Southwark has one to settle disputes concerning council tenants, right-to-but applicants etc, and the University of Edinburgh has one to deal with disputes concerning student accommodation. So what exactly is being proposed? Do away with arbitration tribunals altogether? Or all religious ones? Or just the ones that base their decisions on Shari'a? None of these seem like a particularly good idea. The first option seems like using dynamite to crack a nut. The second and third would mean writing religious discrimination into law, and the third would in addition give Muslim communities further excuse/reason to feel embattled and marginalised.

Don't get me wrong, I agree these courts are a shit idea and would not exist in a better world, but I can't think of any way of getting shot of them, in the present situation, which wouldn't involve massive legal overreach and/or a totally counterproductive backlash, and if anyone can, I'd really like to hear it.

The only thing I can think of would be to establish strong provisions to the effect that decisions made by an Arbitration Tribunal can be overturned (and perhaps also the tribunal made susceptible to civil prosecution) if it can be shown that one or more parties was not fully informed of their rights before acceding to the judgement of the tribunal, or if they were subject to coercion, though this would be hard to show when the coercion in question is simply the pressure exerted by the unspoken expectations of a whole community.

If anyone has a better suggestion, I'd love to hear it!

Wed, 10 Dec 2008 19:34:00 UTC | #285941

More Comments by TalkyMeat