Mr Rose, check out www.bethere.co.uk
they hump everyone else on price(bang for buck) at 22 per month for up to 25mb down and 2.5mb up!
they also do not have limits on downloads.
swapped to them last november and am loving it HUGE
they also have 24 hour tech and customer support.
they truly kick ass. hope your exchange has their equipment bud.
luckily i stay close to my exchange so and pretty near full tilt!
um if you are resident in France then you are entitled to thew health service and what it has to offer , which i might add is a ASSLOAD MORE THAN ANY AMERICAN MMO WILL DO.
i think youi will find that without insurance tyour treatments in America will cost y6ou a large fortune.
In the UK and France this is not the case.
We actually GIVE A SHIT about our fellow countrymen/women and believe in social healthcare, whereas your govt believes in PROFIT for their MMO pals.
not very caring at all
How do I run Office 2007 and VS 2008 under Linux?
In a VM or better yet in a Citrix session, silly. That's not a good excuse to run Windows as your base OS.
What about current and next gen games? How do I get those to work?
This wikipedia link should help.
No charge. If you need anything else I'll be here all day.
a PS3!..LOL you gotta be joking!..lol
there arwe those of us who don'ty play dumbed down console games and much prefer a mosue keyboard combo for gaming. nix has no answer to running pc games and neither does mac due to the lack of releases on mac.
i am not slagging off nix, it's pretty fabulous but when it comes to gaming, and we are talking clients and not game servers, then nix just don't cut the mustard at all.
nix has many and various sriously fantastuic uses but gaming just plain ins't one of them and AGAIN why should i get a crappy ps3 just to play games when i can have it all in one with my pc's XP partition. vista is crap, again no doubts there, xp is better than vista by a large country mile but a PS3.. gimme a break!!!
show me a nix installation or some form of virtualisation that will run all the bells and whistles for gaming purposes!!!
there are many office/production solutions that are great from the FOSS world but none of them cut it with gaming
mind you Scotland will hopefully be free of the shackles(and shackles they are) of the UK soon so less to worry about, however that doesn't change teh fact that, at the moment, THE UK ISN'T JUST BLOODY ENGLAND!!!!!
just keep sticking your finger in your ears saying "no...no....no... my thoughts must take precedence over everything and i will be beligerant about it"
so what you are saying is that you cannot follow the simple logic i have stated?
A "Girlie Man" Supposedly Lacks Not Only Physical Strength, But Nerve and Guts
Putting Schwarzenegger's "girlie men" remarks in context helps to illuminate the stereotypes they further.
First, consider his attack on the California legislators. Schwarzenegger argued, "They cannot have the guts to come out there in front of you and say, 'I don't want to represent you. I want to represent those special interests: the unions, the trial lawyers'. . . I call them girlie men. They should get back to the table, and they should finish this budget."
A "girlie man," in this view, lacks "guts" because he is beholden to special interests. His "girlieness" is a kind of "wimpiness" -- a lack of guts, a lack of strength, and an inability to speak with an independent mind, and get things accomplished.
Conversely - the phrase implies -- "real" men have guts, courage, strength, and the capacity for strong leadership that serves the People directly. So given the choice, the phrase implies, we should prefer "real men" over "girlie men" as our political leaders..
however if you cannot see that all things bigoted imply a slur then you are just being plain obtuse.
if a thought, action, inaction or whatever is RACIST in nature then it imples a SLUR on other races to the person who's had though, action or inaction.
however sone more examples of "unspoken" and "implied slurs" and as follows
As we drove our 2008 model across first the Tobin Bridge to the Zakim Bridge and into the Thomas P. O'Neill Jr. Tunnel, the driver of the older WRX took perverse delight in passing on the right, then letting me pass, before repeatedly dropping in behind me and zooming by on one side or the other. The invitation was clear. "Let's play in traffic and see what you've got." The unspoken slur was: "Your new WRX is a cop-out."
The Arctic was a place where Henson could contribute his full potential. Not because Peary or his white companions were civil rights crusaders, but because the environment of the north simply demanded too much to afford the luxury of limiting any person's contributions on arbitrary racial grounds. By contrast, Henson's life outside the Arctic was a struggle against diminished expectations and unspoken slurs at best and outright racial hatred at worst. But in telling the story, Henson focuses on the exception, the kindness of the sea captain who tutored him and taught him to read, as the defining influence in his life.
Behavioural Descriptions of Non-Human Rights Complaints. Unwelcome verbal or non-verbal behaviour (insults, slurs, jokes, innuendo etc)
http://www.equity.ubc.ca/stats/2006%20D&H%20STATS/Non%20Human%20Rights%20Based%20Behavioral%20Descriptions%20of%20Complaints.pdf
i have put up and no chance of me shutting up.
what's the ship on your shoulder anyway?
there youi have it, implied slurs and non verbal implied slurs in relation to human rights complaints.
sometime an implied slur isn't about what you say, but what you don't say.......... or what is IMPLIED by what you say.
GOOD LORD! your pedanrty is unabashed!
a slur CAN be implied you know!
a bigoted arse is a bigoted arse no matter how you wish to turn the screw on it really.
things can be inplied, a slur can be implied without verbalising it.
sometimes it's when things aren't said that things get implied and sometimes things get said indirectly and things are implied
a thought can imply a slur. and as i said, racism always implies a slur of some sort and bias, a preference of one race against another or or even creed against one another.
any action, or inaction or implication that is racist, by it's very nature implies a slur.
it implies "i don't like your race, i think mine is better." which is in itself is a slur on
"i don't want my child to marry this person"(due to their race) carries a racial slur by it's very nature. it's not unconscious as it is a decision on a very concious level.
all things racist, by their very nature carry a racial slur, an imlication of dislike or preference of one race over another. simple as that
Those are really nice definitions but still don't address real racism. I guess you've never heard of the "unconscious racist". There's no wiki entry but it is real racism without a single use of a slur. You can have black, mexican, chinese, etc. friends but if you wouldn't let your daughter marry one, you are still a racist.
i wouldn't call that unconsious, i'd call that plain racist. simple as.
i have suffered from it,. my family is Italian/Scottish and i have been in a sitation where a father hasn't been happy with that and told the daughter to stop seeing me as i wasn't "English", i was not just "Scottish" and he hated Scots even though he works with many but he also didn't like Italians, again even though he worked with a few and none of the people at his worked even knew of the way he felt...as i said snide git.
that is a racist act and therefore also implies a slur
there is nothing unconscious about the situation you have mentioned though. that's more snide and a "closet" racist situation than "out" racist thing and tell you that the person is not just a bigoted moron but also knowing it is blatantly wrong goes about it in a clandestine manner.
the fact remains that if someone does tell their child not to marry someone of race "x" then they are taking a racist course of action which implies racial inferiority on the person in question which is a racial slur. it's implied racism where it's not blatantly stated.
no matter what the type of racism, concious or unconcious it implies that there is something you don't like about race "x,y or z" and thus is a slur.
All racism is a slut one way or the other as it implies through action,deed or inaction a slur.
for something to be racist a racial slur has to be said or implied or be actions motivated by those racist ideas. thus racially motivated.
the slut is there , whether actually said or implied by words or actions.
just thinking a type of music is crap doesn't mean that it's a racial thing at all against the colour or race of those folks who are the majority of the performers of that genre, it just means you think a particular type of music is crap.
if they think that the use of racial slurs defines racism then they need a wakeup call
ok so what you are implying is that a racial slur may not be racist? ANYTHING racist implies a racial slur by the very nature of it's bigotry.
if something is racist it implies that "x" race is better than "y" race and thus casts a slur on "y" race.... it's that simple.
what you are talking about is BIAS. BIAS indicates a preference to something and therfore against something else.
for example i have a BIAS in favour of goth/rock/industrial stuff(amongst many others) and i am BIASED against country/western as it is truly evil!
in fact i have been told that if country/western music is played backwards you get your wife,job,house,car and dog back!
you have been pointed to PLENTY of links, both medical and ethical and you "poo-poo" them.
you claim that statements and professional opinion by medical professionals, medical associations and ethical bodies all to be pseudo science..
why not just stick you fingers in your ears as usual and shout "blah blah blah i can't hear you" as usual.
you'd make a very good religious fundementalist indeed with that guff.
With regards to female circumcision i compared labial removal to removal of the foreskin and you said
I have to admit some ignorance of female circumcision, but AFAIK there are rigorous scientific studies indicating harm in adults who have had female circumcision. Though, maybe predictably, this harm is not as bad as opponents suggest
that is a direct qoute.... remember that???? try telling that to little girls who have had that done.
the other tyope of female circumcision is removing both the labia and the clitorus which would be equatable to removal of both the foreskin and the glans.. nasty business indeed.
BUT even just labial removal is outlawed in pretty much every civilised society and THAT IS directly equatable to male circumcision.......
and you stated, as quited above that you didn't recko that
this harm is not as bad as opponents suggest
i suggest your utter failure to grasp ethics , morals, simple rights and wrongs is jaded by your dogmatic and beligerant defence of the indefensible
as what you said there, is that dissmissive little "poo-poo" is completely WRONG AND CANOT BE DEFENDED!
I'll have to take your word for it. If you say that there is no medical evidence that labial circumcision is harmful
i never said that at all, as they say here in Scotland, you are talking utter bollocks!
But I'm very confused - is it horrible and monstrous with documented harmful effects, or is it a cosmetic procedure with no demonstrable harmful effects... you seem to indicate both.
i don't indicate both , i was comparing YOUR standard to it.
YOU said it was a harmless thing.
you are not equipped to debate any side of the circumcision argument at all is you cannot equate the monstrosity of male and female circumcision.
you are now scraping the barrel to avoid the comparison YOU made by sayng female circumcision was a harmless thing... which indeed you did.
MUPPET
i am not a doctor but two of my close cousins are and one lectures in medical ethics at St Andrews University, the other is a consultant paediatrician and Sick kids hospital here in Edinburgh
depending on the particular type of female circumcision depeds on whether orgasm is stil, possible.
if it's labial then the clitorus is left intact, there foer orgasm will still be achievable. when the clitorus is removed it's a different story.
it's monstrous and unethical in the extreme and IS equatable to male corcumcison(labial famale circumcision is at any roads)
and it IS a nasty assed thing to do..
oh and for the record, just because children are not afforded the full rights of an adult doesn't mean they should not be afforded the respet ANY human being is. with respect , for me at any roads, includes respecting the fact that their body should stay intact as nature intended unless a medical condition dictates otherwise. even then i would discuss it with my son and talk it through qwith him. making sure he understand what is about to happen and if comfortable as possible with what is going on.
just because a child is young, doesn't mean if they are given all the information they need in a way that they can follow and understand, doesn't mean they cannot then have an informed opinion and thus can, with the HELP of a parent have informed consent!
Ethically in a medical sense the doctors relationship revolves round the doctor patient relationship. when with a child then it is with the child and NOT the parent. if a parent asks for a proceedure that is religiously motivated or refuse medical treatment for religious purposes then in america i believe this has to be respected de to the constitution.
this is nt the case i teh UK as a clurt order can be applied for and the treatment can be continued or refused on the ground of th best interests of the child
I have to admit some ignorance of female circumcision, but AFAIK there are rigorous scientific studies indicating harm in adults who have had female circumcision. Though, maybe predictably, this harm is not as bad as opponents suggest - and the issue is more complicated because there are many forms of female mutilation but only one common form of male mutilation.
i specified labial circumcision(the removal of the labia) as an equatable proceedure to male circumcision.
it is reviled practically everywhere, and rightly so as it's a brutal mysoganistic mutilation.
Now for you to suggest that "it's not as bad as opponets suggest" is quite frankly moronic and shows you up, a lot. a whole heck of a lot.
i would suggest that, as i have stated before, it's a nasty assed brutal , unnecessary proceedure carried out wholly for a cultural aesthetic.
i would hazard a guess that the girls this is done to don't find it particularly aesthetic and also that they have no choice in having it done.
Now in this world where all rights are meant to be equal then it follows that male circumcision for non medical,cultural aesthetic reasons is just brutal and unethical and female circumcision.
why don't you ask any women here on/. or in your home town how harmless female circumcision is? and also put forward your "logic" on the matter to them and see how long before they metaphorically remove you balls and hand them to you on a plate.
your stance is morally,ethically and mdecially unjustified.
Tradition doesn't cut it and the choice should be the the choice of the individual(in this case the child) not some social convention.
Oh and btw children have a fair amount of rights under the international convention on human rights(i different type of convention i might add..lol)
ok, let's put it like this.
you aer saying that you are pro-choice... fair enough.
you say there is no harm in it and that's it's traditional.
now the circumcision of infant actually is equatable to labial circumcision in female children in the is removes healthy tissue froma child without concent.
So are you saying that this is also a good thing? or does you logic say that female circumcision is a bad thing but it's ok for little boys t be mutilated?
it's the same thing by your logic.
if it is immoral in one sex then it it follows that it is equally immoral in the other.
unless it is a proceedure that is medically required to stop pain/suffering/disease then it has no ethical rationale.
it is an aetshetic choice(the choice not being the childs choice either), platic surgery if you will.
now watch that footage in the P&T...hear the screams of the poor wee laddie and tell me that didn't hurt him, that it didn't harm him and that it was perfectly ok?
you didn't want it for your son so why wish this brutal inexcusable mutilation on anyone elses?
in cases where this was't about the barbaric un-ndded removal of healthy tissue from infant children then i would applaud a freedom og choice.
in this case i cannot due to the fact that the CHILD who'd healthy tissue is being removed ISN'T GIVEN THE CHOICE.
this is a moral and ethical issue that IS indeed backed up by qualified medical professionals and legislatures worldwide.
In my eyes it IS legitimate to equate male circumcison with female circumcision (of the type the removes the healthy labia tissue) and thus if there are to be equal rights and protection for children then both practices shoyld be equally illegal practices/traditions EVERYWHERE.
the ponly circumstance where male circumcision of a chld would be acceptable to me would in where it was considered a medical necessity .
in this case i see it as rank hypocrisy to say "i would not do this to my son" and yet promote the "right" of others to barbarically remove the healthy tissue of the penis in a CHILD.
The UN Commission on the former Yugoslavia defines circumcision as sexual assault and a human rights violationlink
In Article 24.3 of the Convention on the Rights of the Childlink the phrase, "traditional procedures prejudicial to the health of children," refers to the practice of circumcision. The circumcision of male children, therefore, violates numerous provisions of various international human rights instruments,Link ALink BLink C and must be considered unethical medical practice.
Doctors Opposing Circumcision has released a detailed report on human rights and the circumcision of children.link
Pain relief. Circumcision is an inherently painful procedure. Contemporary medical ethics requires that anesthesia/analgesia be provided for painful procedures on children. Provision of pain relief, however, cannot make an unethical procedure ethical.
I don't actually think that I would circumcise my own son - why do it? There is no benefit and I have no religious or cultural reason to do it. I object to cosmetic surgery in general, so that petty much ties it up for me
LOLOL thus proving my point that you are basically playing your cards like like as you purely enjoy beligerance. kinda sad
so the American Medical Association is pseudo scientists?? io think the whole of the American medical practitioners are cranks then?
they are a reputable organisation who REPRESENT THE MEDICAL COMMUNITY YOU MUPPET! how can you not recognise their legitimacy and threfore their opinion as 100% scientific and based on vast amounts of medical accumulated knowledge?
e
still got yout fingers in your ears i see!
the two paediatricians in the programs are quacks? again REAL medical scientists giving their professional opinion! what's so professional about YOUR opinion...
And even you concede that it predates Judaism. Certainly long enough that it should be paid some respect.
and just because it's an old/traditional pratice, such as female circumcision is doesn't make it right.
there are many of these traditional practices that are plain and ouright BARBARIC, so by your "logic" all these are fine and shopuld be respected and no-one shold point out they are morally repugnant?.... not a chance bud, not a chance
There is no scientific evidence tying infant circumcision to any kind of problems - mental or physical - in the adult population.
so the fact you are putting your child into so much pain it goes into shock and the agonised screams can be heard from this barbaric practise means nothign to you, the fact you are denying a child it's RIGHT not to be forcibly put through AGONISING PAIN means nothing?... you make me barf!
did you know that child child circumcision is banned in france due to it's barbaric nature??? mind you , i can imagien you coming upo with some "freedom fries " logic on that FACT..LOL
it's also beng banned in Norway and there is a movement in the UK to have the same law brought in.
the ban is brought in for ETHICAL REASON alogn the lines that excising healthy tissue from a child that cannot give consent is an imoral practise and therefore unethical and unneccassary!
Tasmanian childrens commissioner also called for a ban on child circumcision too!
teh Danish also compare male circumcision to female circumcision and a ban was called for my the magazine "Politiken"
Also as an asides, if male circumcision(in adults) is meant to prevent HIV, and apparently most American males are circumcised then how comes the VAST majority of male HIV positive males are circumcised.... the HIV crap[ioca sounds like voodo science to me from a so called study of a VERY SMALL group of people.
so how about this wee history here
10,000 (?) BCE Aboriginal tribes in central and desert regions of Australia introduce circumcision of boys as puberty rite
6000 (?) BCE Circumcision (male and female) practised as puberty rite by tribes in north-eastern African and Arabian peninsula
3100 BCE Egypt invaded from the south, perhaps by African tribes bringing circumcision with them.
2300 BCE Egyptian bas-relief which may show some form of genital mutilation being performed. The relief is eroded and hard to interpret. More commonly seen as modern reconstruction. One interpretation is that it just shows the pubic hair being shaved. Contrary to some reports, no circumcised mummies have been found, but some statues show what may be a superincision (cutting a slit in the upper side of the foreskin, or dorsal slit).
600 BCE First five books of Hebrew Bible (Torah) compiled, including Genesis with its reference to Yaweh's command to Abraham to circumcise himself, his sons and his slaves and servants. Circumcision enforced by priests among Jewish people as sign of the Covenant.
450 BCE Greek historians note prevalence of circumcision and other penile mutilations among the Arabs and other Middle Eastern tribes. Herodotus (485-420 BCE) observes and deplores circumcision among the Colchians, Ethiopians, Phoenicians, Syrians, and Macrones, as well as the Egyptian priestly caste. He criticises the fanatical ritual cleanliness of the Egyptian priests: "They [even] practice circumcision for the sake of cleanline
LOL not science..LOLOL
Waht i am "preaching" as you put it ir HGILY MORAL in that i think it's a disgrace and barbaric to do a proceedure on a child that has no medical basis or value and is done purely on aesthetics.
your stance is to "poo-poo" ANY genuine evidence as "nonsense" which shows that you are showing a more dogmatic "anything anyone shows me that proves i am wrong i will just say it's not scientific even when it is"
it's the equivelant of putting your fingers in your ears and shouting "lalalalalalalalala"
LOL 6000 years???..lol where ddid you pick that number....hmmm lemme guess... the bible...
well according to those ber scientific indivudual who wish to retard the entire world(born again christians) that's when they say the world was formed.
you sir should be feartured on Y.A.A.F.M!
but even if you look at it from a purely judeaic point of view, there were many other religions who did it before. it isn't a purely judeo/christian thing. And even the Rabbi in teh prgram made comment on circimcision not truly being required(i imagine in relation of converts)
in fact , as some wise gentleman quoted earlier on, i do believe it was St paul , who in trying to sell christianity outside the jewish community, tried to preach that circumcision was on a requisite for christianity.
Just because something is tradition does not make it right or proper to do.
I am not trying to take away yopur rights as a parent, i am trying to reinforce in you the RIGHTS OF THE CHILD to be able to make an informed choice.
a newborn child cannot make an informed choice.
Now back onto P&T's program... what about the quote from the American medical association... are they NOT scientific enough?, what about the Dr's there saying their professional opinion on it?
so they are not scientific because you don't agree. you see they have to make sure they get their research spot on or it's litigation time... you however just seem to reject even expert opinion because it doesn't conform to your very narrow world view.
i think i shall rename you MightYARSE! that seems to be what you talk out of mostly when not sticking yor fingers in your ears shouting "lalalalala.... i can't hear you" to facts posted here along with the genuine moral issue in regards to this brutal proceedure.
holy christ on a fucking bike!
it's a wee bit more than a comedy show!
it's a show that debunks MYTHS and does so ina humerous fashion.
they have a crack research team, they present their show with a humerous twist to that people swallow the fact they have been DUPED a tad easier.
to describe it a merely a comedy show shows that you are either only takign this stance to get a reactionor that you are legendarily obtuse!
It's a DEBUNKING SHOW.. you knwo, debunking myths......... and from what you say you just don't get that... LOOK at the people and the organisations quoted in it!????
and then you go on to say
"i hope you don't take the choice away from others"
FUCKADOODLEDO!!!!!
WHAT CHOICE ARE YOU GIVING INFANT CHILDREN WHEN YOU ARE MUTILATING THEIR GENITALS????????????
Penn & Teller finally give skeptics a no-holds-barred series that debunks, educates and entertains.
Perry DeAngelis
The New England Journal of Skepticism, Volume 6 Issue 1
5/1/2003
Showtime, Fridays at 11 PM is now "Don't Miss TV" for the skeptically-hearted. It is a debunker's paradise of exposure and explanation. The irrepressible Penn Jillette and "silent-in-performance" Teller have a new series thereupon called "Penn & Teller: Bullshit." This rather catchy title was not chosen for shock purposes, but for legal ones. As Penn explains in the initial show, calling con artists frauds or the like will keep you in litigation for your natural life. However, "oddly," as Penn puts it, calling them bullshit artists is pretty legally safe. Ah, the foibles of the slander laws. Showtime being a premium cable service means profanity is not a problem, and Penn spews a heap of it, all directed at the snake oilists the team eviscerates.
At 30 minutes in length, the show takes on either one or two topics per episode. The standard format of the series is to begin with Penn & Teller on a prop minimal set (except for their oversized stylized ampersand) wherein Penn eludes to the evening's theme, with Teller pantomiming in the background. After this brief opening, credits roll, and the show goes to its crew in the field. When it's a two-topic show, approximately half way through an attempt at segue is made, and the latter theme commences.
Each sequence follows more or less the same format of showing some gullible purveyor(s) at their task, then clipping in an introduction with their name and occupation or interest. An evidence-based person(s) in the field follows this. All of these experts on either side of the question are listed individually on the shows website, with links to their own websites. Finally the show will often try the most extreme examples of the topic at hand on common folk, to demonstrate that people can believe in almost anything if packaged well. In a segment from their "Alternative Medicine" show, destined for the Radio & Television Hall of Fame, a guy in a lab coat placed in a mall gets people to allow him to apply a snail mucous treatment to their faces, in an attempt to alleviate wrinkles. The scene of these people with the snails crawling across their mugs, and then admiring their snot smeared faces in a mirror, is priceless.
Penn's voice-over during these segments is pervasive. He both narrates and comments on what is being said and shown. It ranges from a calm explanation of the scene, to a vulgar exclamation about the racket on screen. Yet, remember that calling someone a "fu*king assh*le" rather then a lying scam artist keeps the lawyers at bay. Thus, this sometimes heavy-handed way of Penn's expressing the duos passion about a particular subject must be seen through that filter. The NESS accepts that the vulgarity would not be utilized if it were not necessary. Skeptics must be ever vigilant of being made to don the suit of law.
A pleasant side note for skeptics in the know is that all three of the national skeptical organizations have been tapped for the show. Thus far Joe Nickel has appeared from CSICOP, James Randi from JREF and Michael Shermer from the Skeptics Society. No bickering is being to
Also if the veoh link won't work then this one will.
it will be active for 12 hours from posting.
http://www.pax681.co.nr/
you'll find it there and it does work.
well a very reasoned argument was given by Penn and Teller is Series three episode one of bullshit!
if you can get hold of it was. they give , as i said, a VERY reasoned argument against this brutal practise.
one doctor tells of how an infant child nervous system is "hyper developed" and thus they feel the PAIN MORE ACUTELY!
it's brutal, barbaric and has no place in a modern, enlightened society (unless done for s specific medical reason)
in fact if you get VeohTV you vcan get it or you can download it from http://tinyurl.com/2fkldw
now come back to me after watching this piece of EXTREMELY WELL RESEARCHED anti circumcision program. in your face as they say!
strange that even though you haven't got a complete prick you are indeed a complete prick! i for one wopuld NEVER even think of
considering doing this to my son!
Slashdot Mirror
Mr Rose, check out www.bethere.co.uk they hump everyone else on price(bang for buck) at 22 per month for up to 25mb down and 2.5mb up! they also do not have limits on downloads. swapped to them last november and am loving it HUGE they also have 24 hour tech and customer support. they truly kick ass. hope your exchange has their equipment bud. luckily i stay close to my exchange so and pretty near full tilt!
um if you are resident in France then you are entitled to thew health service and what it has to offer , which i might add is a ASSLOAD MORE THAN ANY AMERICAN MMO WILL DO. i think youi will find that without insurance tyour treatments in America will cost y6ou a large fortune. In the UK and France this is not the case. We actually GIVE A SHIT about our fellow countrymen/women and believe in social healthcare, whereas your govt believes in PROFIT for their MMO pals. not very caring at all
i am not slagging off nix, it's pretty fabulous but when it comes to gaming, and we are talking clients and not game servers, then nix just don't cut the mustard at all. nix has many and various sriously fantastuic uses but gaming just plain ins't one of them and AGAIN why should i get a crappy ps3 just to play games when i can have it all in one with my pc's XP partition. vista is crap, again no doubts there, xp is better than vista by a large country mile but a PS3.. gimme a break!!! show me a nix installation or some form of virtualisation that will run all the bells and whistles for gaming purposes!!! there are many office/production solutions that are great from the FOSS world but none of them cut it with gaming
um.. there's more to the UK than just "England"
mind you Scotland will hopefully be free of the shackles(and shackles they are) of the UK soon so less to worry about, however that doesn't change teh fact that, at the moment, THE UK ISN'T JUST BLOODY ENGLAND!!!!!
as no-one else has never said "YAWNOLA"
just keep sticking your finger in your ears saying "no...no....no... my thoughts must take precedence over everything and i will be beligerant about it"
i can't be arsed to be frank
however if you cannot see that all things bigoted imply a slur then you are just being plain obtuse. if a thought, action, inaction or whatever is RACIST in nature then it imples a SLUR on other races to the person who's had though, action or inaction
however sone more examples of "unspoken" and "implied slurs" and as follows
http://www.boston.com/cars/news/articles/2008/03/02/less_in_your_face_but_still_formidable/
oooh look http://www.pearyhenson.org/MatthewhensonBIZ/index.htm
Behavioural Descriptions of Non-Human Rights Complaints. Unwelcome verbal or non-verbal behaviour (insults, slurs, jokes, innuendo etc) http://www.equity.ubc.ca/stats/2006%20D&H%20STATS/Non%20Human%20Rights%20Based%20Behavioral%20Descriptions%20of%20Complaints.pdf i have put up and no chance of me shutting up. what's the ship on your shoulder anyway? there youi have it, implied slurs and non verbal implied slurs in relation to human rights complaints. sometime an implied slur isn't about what you say, but what you don't say
GOOD LORD! your pedanrty is unabashed! a slur CAN be implied you know!
a bigoted arse is a bigoted arse no matter how you wish to turn the screw on it really. things can be inplied, a slur can be implied without verbalising it.
sometimes it's when things aren't said that things get implied and sometimes things get said indirectly and things are implied
a thought can imply a slur. and as i said, racism always implies a slur of some sort and bias, a preference of one race against another or or even creed against one another.
bigotry in all it's forms is repugnant
any action, or inaction or implication that is racist, by it's very nature implies a slur. it implies "i don't like your race, i think mine is better." which is in itself is a slur on
"i don't want my child to marry this person"(due to their race) carries a racial slur by it's very nature. it's not unconscious as it is a decision on a very concious level.
all things racist, by their very nature carry a racial slur, an imlication of dislike or preference of one race over another. simple as that
there is nothing unconscious about the situation you have mentioned though. that's more snide and a "closet" racist situation than "out" racist thing and tell you that the person is not just a bigoted moron but also knowing it is blatantly wrong goes about it in a clandestine manner. the fact remains that if someone does tell their child not to marry someone of race "x" then they are taking a racist course of action which implies racial inferiority on the person in question which is a racial slur. it's implied racism where it's not blatantly stated.
no matter what the type of racism, concious or unconcious it implies that there is something you don't like about race "x,y or z" and thus is a slur. All racism is a slut one way or the other as it implies through action,deed or inaction a slur.
http://www.yourdictionary.com/racism
http://www.euroamerican.org/library/Racismdf.asp
for something to be racist a racial slur has to be said or implied or be actions motivated by those racist ideas. thus racially motivated. the slut is there , whether actually said or implied by words or actions.
just thinking a type of music is crap doesn't mean that it's a racial thing at all against the colour or race of those folks who are the majority of the performers of that genre, it just means you think a particular type of music is crap.
ok so what you are implying is that a racial slur may not be racist? ANYTHING racist implies a racial slur by the very nature of it's bigotry. if something is racist it implies that "x" race is better than "y" race and thus casts a slur on "y" race.... it's that simple.
feel free bud!
what you are talking about is BIAS. BIAS indicates a preference to something and therfore against something else. for example i have a BIAS in favour of goth/rock/industrial stuff(amongst many others) and i am BIASED against country/western as it is truly evil!
in fact i have been told that if country/western music is played backwards you get your wife,job,house,car and dog back!
i am not a doctor but two of my close cousins are and one lectures in medical ethics at St Andrews University, the other is a consultant paediatrician and Sick kids hospital here in Edinburgh
depending on the particular type of female circumcision depeds on whether orgasm is stil, possible. if it's labial then the clitorus is left intact, there foer orgasm will still be achievable. when the clitorus is removed it's a different story. it's monstrous and unethical in the extreme and IS equatable to male corcumcison(labial famale circumcision is at any roads) and it IS a nasty assed thing to do.. oh and for the record, just because children are not afforded the full rights of an adult doesn't mean they should not be afforded the respet ANY human being is. with respect , for me at any roads, includes respecting the fact that their body should stay intact as nature intended unless a medical condition dictates otherwise. even then i would discuss it with my son and talk it through qwith him. making sure he understand what is about to happen and if comfortable as possible with what is going on. just because a child is young, doesn't mean if they are given all the information they need in a way that they can follow and understand, doesn't mean they cannot then have an informed opinion and thus can, with the HELP of a parent have informed consent! Ethically in a medical sense the doctors relationship revolves round the doctor patient relationship. when with a child then it is with the child and NOT the parent. if a parent asks for a proceedure that is religiously motivated or refuse medical treatment for religious purposes then in america i believe this has to be respected de to the constitution. this is nt the case i teh UK as a clurt order can be applied for and the treatment can be continued or refused on the ground of th best interests of the child
ok, let's put it like this. you aer saying that you are pro-choice... fair enough. you say there is no harm in it and that's it's traditional. now the circumcision of infant actually is equatable to labial circumcision in female children in the is removes healthy tissue froma child without concent. So are you saying that this is also a good thing? or does you logic say that female circumcision is a bad thing but it's ok for little boys t be mutilated? it's the same thing by your logic. if it is immoral in one sex then it it follows that it is equally immoral in the other. unless it is a proceedure that is medically required to stop pain/suffering/disease then it has no ethical rationale. it is an aetshetic choice(the choice not being the childs choice either), platic surgery if you will. now watch that footage in the P&T...hear the screams of the poor wee laddie and tell me that didn't hurt him, that it didn't harm him and that it was perfectly ok? you didn't want it for your son so why wish this brutal inexcusable mutilation on anyone elses?
and just because it's an old/traditional pratice, such as female circumcision is doesn't make it right. there are many of these traditional practices that are plain and ouright BARBARIC, so by your "logic" all these are fine and shopuld be respected and no-one shold point out they are morally repugnant? .... not a chance bud, not a chance
so the fact you are putting your child into so much pain it goes into shock and the agonised screams can be heard from this barbaric practise means nothign to you, the fact you are denying a child it's RIGHT not to be forcibly put through AGONISING PAIN means nothing?... you make me barf! did you know that child child circumcision is banned in france due to it's barbaric nature??? mind you , i can imagien you coming upo with some "freedom fries " logic on that FACT..LOL it's also beng banned in Norway and there is a movement in the UK to have the same law brought in. the ban is brought in for ETHICAL REASON alogn the lines that excising healthy tissue from a child that cannot give consent is an imoral practise and therefore unethical and unneccassary! Tasmanian childrens commissioner also called for a ban on child circumcision too! teh Danish also compare male circumcision to female circumcision and a ban was called for my the magazine "Politiken" Also as an asides, if male circumcision(in adults) is meant to prevent HIV, and apparently most American males are circumcised then how comes the VAST majority of male HIV positive males are circumcised.... the HIV crap[ioca sounds like voodo science to me from a so called study of a VERY SMALL group of people. so how about this wee history here
LOL not science..LOLOL Waht i am "preaching" as you put it ir HGILY MORAL in that i think it's a disgrace and barbaric to do a proceedure on a child that has no medical basis or value and is done purely on aesthetics. your stance is to "poo-poo" ANY genuine evidence as "nonsense" which shows that you are showing a more dogmatic "anything anyone shows me that proves i am wrong i will just say it's not scientific even when it is" it's the equivelant of putting your fingers in your ears and shouting "lalalalalalalalala" LOL 6000 years???..lol where ddid you pick that number....hmmm lemme guess... the bible... well according to those ber scientific indivudual who wish to retard the entire world(born again christians) that's when they say the world was formed. you sir should be feartured on Y.A.A.F.M! but even if you look at it from a purely judeaic point of view, there were many other religions who did it before. it isn't a purely judeo/christian thing. And even the Rabbi in teh prgram made comment on circimcision not truly being required(i imagine in relation of converts) in fact , as some wise gentleman quoted earlier on, i do believe it was St paul , who in trying to sell christianity outside the jewish community, tried to preach that circumcision was on a requisite for christianity. Just because something is tradition does not make it right or proper to do. I am not trying to take away yopur rights as a parent, i am trying to reinforce in you the RIGHTS OF THE CHILD to be able to make an informed choice. a newborn child cannot make an informed choice. Now back onto P&T's program... what about the quote from the American medical association ... are they NOT scientific enough?, what about the Dr's there saying their professional opinion on it?
so they are not scientific because you don't agree. you see they have to make sure they get their research spot on or it's litigation time... you however just seem to reject even expert opinion because it doesn't conform to your very narrow world view.
i think i shall rename you MightYARSE! that seems to be what you talk out of mostly when not sticking yor fingers in your ears shouting "lalalalala.... i can't hear you" to facts posted here along with the genuine moral issue in regards to this brutal proceedure.
Also if the veoh link won't work then this one will. it will be active for 12 hours from posting. http://www.pax681.co.nr/ you'll find it there and it does work.
well a very reasoned argument was given by Penn and Teller is Series three episode one of bullshit! if you can get hold of it was. they give , as i said, a VERY reasoned argument against this brutal practise. one doctor tells of how an infant child nervous system is "hyper developed" and thus they feel the PAIN MORE ACUTELY! it's brutal, barbaric and has no place in a modern, enlightened society (unless done for s specific medical reason) in fact if you get VeohTV you vcan get it or you can download it from http://tinyurl.com/2fkldw now come back to me after watching this piece of EXTREMELY WELL RESEARCHED anti circumcision program. in your face as they say! strange that even though you haven't got a complete prick you are indeed a complete prick! i for one wopuld NEVER even think of considering doing this to my son!