Jump to content

Don't Miss a Beat

Join the UK's most passionate festival community. Keep up with the latest conversations, line-up rumours, and music news.

250,000+ Members

Connect with a massive network of fellow festival-goers.

Lively Discussions

Thousands of active topics on music, campsites, and tips.

Hot Rumours & News

Hear about secret sets and lineup drops before anyone else.

Create Free Account
OR
  • Sign Up!

    Join our friendly community of music lovers and be part of the fun 😎

UK Census 2011


Guest MrZigster

Recommended Posts

Whether the theory behind that science is 100% correct or not can ultimately be ignored. The 'why' it works is of little importance to the fact that it DOES work. The working proves the science, irrespective of the theory.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 304
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • Admin

:lol: That's a classic. The theory is cultural knowledge. It didn't get that way in the exact same way as a scientist theorised, either. It got that way because a maker followed instructions based upon an inventors trial and error, you complete imbocile.

What's more, a television is an entirely cultural invention and completely depends upon cultural knowledge to make.

But that's not what I've been talking about anyway. I'm talking about science telling us the reason of how and why we're here. It can't do it without a theory because there's nothing to prove or disprove, is there.

Trial and error creates knowledge. You don't know what to trial without a theory though.

You've completely missed the point. :rolleyes:

There are theories - NOT trial and error - which have led to developments in the technical side of (say) TVs (pick another product if you wish - if you like, the CERN particle accelerator). Yes, I completely get that those theories grow out of cultural ideas.

The theory will say "it will do X because of Y". They may or may not have theorised correctly the 'why' of what happens (time will tell with this, I guess).

But irregardless of whether the theory is giving the right reasons for the 'why' of what happens, the thing that happens DOES happen. You turn on your TV, and you get a colour picture via a digital signal (which was very definitely something that was not purely from trial and error). What was expected to happen has happened.

It doesn't prove beyond all doubt the theory, but it DOES prove beyond all doubt the technical conclusions - that a particular thing will happen if you do X, Y & Z.

So those technical conclusions are proven as correct. And so the result of those technical conclusions are shown to be completely free of cultural influences - unless you're stupidly going to argue that a person watching TV is a part of the technical ideas* and so cultural, or that the idea of of being free of cultural influences is itself cultural (which is just pathetically pointless).

(* which takes us into the realm where only "is it or is it not a delusion that you see a picture?" becomes the consideration, where all discussion becomes meaningless because the discussion has the exact same 'delusion' question which cannot be answered; we operate EVERYTHING on the basis that such things are NOT delusions - such as what you're arguing. So you can't take this line with your argument unless you're going to disappear up your own arse in a puff of smoke)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Admin

Yeah, that's why its called trail and error. Can't get to trial it without a theory though and don't get any results without culture.

the results themselves are free of culture.

Something either 'is' or 'is not' - this is not cultural, it is reality.*

(* if you wish to dispute this, then you have no argument to dispute anything with. Your argument can not exist in reality if there is no reality).

If a TV works, it proves the 'is', and that 'is' is completely free of culture.

And so 'scientific result' (not the 'how' of how that result was got) is free of all culture.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I went rummaging around the internet looking for the possibility of non-compliance with this Census and the implications.

There were 1.5 million forms not returned at the last census in 2001 and this led to 38 prosecutions. You can be fined up to £1000.

Some suggested forms of making it harder for Lockheed Martin are; Smearing a substance e.g. jam across the form. Obliterating all barcodes on the form. Filling in the form upside-down.

These may be considered purile but many people are concerned by the influence of the British Government on the daily lives of the citizens of this country.

I will now return you to the internet chest-beating and posturing that this thread has descended into.

Edited by Donkey
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Admin

Which in turn popularises an approach to scientific endeavour and furthers a construct of knowledge. In short, it becomes our culture.

which is the complete opposite to what you've been saying up til now. :)

I don't know why you raised this example in relation to reality, as it isn't relevant.

yes it is. Existence is reality, it is not cultural.

It's only when we take a meaning from existence that it becomes cultural. Which gets to mean that 'scientific proof' - that something happens (but not the why it happens), that something 'is' - is not cultural.

What I'm talking about is that we have a theory (that we can go to the moon, that we can sail the seven sees, that we can fly) that leads us to scientific discovery (spaceshuttles, boats, planes) thus determining the world around us (our culture).

But you're entirely wrong.

Culture leads us to investigate things.

When we investigate things we get to discover things that are free of culture, that something 'is'. It is a reality - it is a part of the world around us, but nothing about it is cultural.

What we then take from that discovery - how we interpret it - is cultural.

But that middle part - where we get to discover that something 'is' - is a reality, free of culture, yet from science. Which proves the lie of what you've said, that everything about science is cultural.

And to bring it back to how we've got to here, it DOES get to mean that there's a substance to science which is absent from religious ideas. It has a firmer base, it has proof.

It's not got the possibility of being a self-invented delusion as is the case with every single religious idea that exists.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I went rummaging around the internet looking for the possibility of non-compliance with this Census and the implications.

There were 1.5 million forms not returned at the last census in 2001 and this led to 38 prosecutions. You can be fined up to £1000.

Some suggested forms of making it harder for Lockheed Martin are; Smearing a substance e.g. jam across the form. Obliterating all barcodes on the form. Filling in the form upside-down.

These may be considered purile but many people are concerned by the influence of the British Government on the daily lives of the citizens of this country.

I will now return you to the internet chest-beating and posturing that this thread has descended into.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Admin

It is cultural, as culture has assigned the question of whether it is or not with a significant value, as it has figured a gap in its knowledge.

It could not ask the question. And, more importantly, there wouldn't be a question to ask without culture.

Nope, completely wrong.

All of the questions are cultural, but existence itself* is not.

(* I'm not (particularly) meaning human existence. I'm meaning the existence of anything).

No doubt you'll deny it. I'll let you, and I'll ignore it.

Cos give it a few years and you'll be arguing exactly this, just as you've yesterday argued that science is trial and error when you've previously told me I'm stupid for saying just that to you. One day you might get to catch up. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You're artificially seperating reality and culture Neil. They aren't seperate. We see reality through a cultural lense and reality shapes our culture. We call this knowledge.

Here's a practical example of how evolutionary theory is actively shaping a cultural system of knowledge, that being linguistics in this instance.......

http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online&aid=324725

Now my question is, why would we ever look into this without a specific theory of evolution? More importantly, the findings can only be said to be true or false according to the theory. There is no point at which the scientific framework being used can be said to be true or false, only sound or unsound, which depends entirely upon the theory being proven true or false. Axiomatic, positivist bollocks!

Edited by worm
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Admin

That isn't existence. It's the measurement of exsitence.

wrong. No measurement can be taken without something first existing. Existence is independent of everything.

No it isn't. Anything man made is culture. Absolutely anything at all that relates to knowledge is cultural because man made it. Everything.

anything made has come from culture. It's existence (once it exists) is independent of culture. Existence is independent of everything.

Science both informs culture and is informed by it. The reason is because it takes a man to theorise on the basis of logic (man made!) and exact a subsequent test (man made!) to tell him something about existence (man made!). What he comes to know enters into cultural knowledge, just as it informed the question in the first place.

Existence is independent of culture.

History tells me you'll say now that's wrong. History tells me you'll be trying to tell me this as tho it's some great insight you've had within 2 years - you've done that with near enough everything to date. :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Admin

You're artificially seperating reality and culture Neil. They aren't seperate. We see reality through a cultural lense

how can anything be seen thru a cultural lens if it's not there? :lol::lol:

Which means, by very simple and irrefutable logic, that a thing has to exist (in its own reality, if you like) before your or my reality can process it.

Existence is independent of everything.

Our awareness of a things' existence is something separate to that.

Existence 'just is'.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Admin

If it isn't there, then it doesn't exist. What's the intended relevancy of this question?

Because - logically, rationally, linguistically, and in reality - if it is there then it does exist. :rolleyes:

And that existence is independent of it being sensed as there - after all, it can't be sensed as there if it's not there. This very simple logic irrefutably proves the independence of existence.

God exists as a human concept. Evolution exists as a human concept. Neither exist in reality. They only exist as theories that have been build up through cultural knowledge.

Wrong.

Evolution *THEORY* exists as a human concept. That's merely the 'why' we think evolution happens.

Evolution itself happens. The process of evolution has been observed, and so it must exist. It couldn't be observed if it didn't exist.

The only logical counter to to this idea is to say "everything is delusion". Except you never can do - you would have disappeared up your own arse in a puff of smoke before the words could be delivered.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Admin

wrong. All that you have to know that it's there is your sense. What you're suggesting is unscientific.

no it's not.

Either my senses work, or I'm deluded - and if I'm deluded then this discussion doesn't exist.

So, on the basis that I'm not deluded then my senses MUST work, and therefore if I'm able to know of something then it must exist. Given that this scenario is at the heart of all science then it cannot possibly be unscientific. ;)

Without sensing anything, it isn't evident. You're going against your principle of evidence. As soon as you do that you're into believing shit that isn't there - the very thing you defile.

no I'm not. I know something is there because it IS there. As you said above, it's not there then it can't be known to be there.

This method gives irrefutable evidence of the existence of things, or a delusion ... but if things are delusions then so's this discussion, and everything is nothing, and you disappear up your own arse in a puff of smoke.

So there is only one way forwards, the same forwards that you use to deduce what you have above (even tho it's wrong) - you can't say what I say is wrong when talking of this subject matter without it also making yourself wrong in your own mind; that is the only way that deductive logic [even deductive logic that gets the wrong answer] can work.

Your and my ideas here are both ideas that work from what has been (truly) sensed - you've sensed that we use senses to know of things; I've sensed that they can only be sensed if they actually exist.

Aye, that's what I said.

no you didn't. If you're going to pretend that you said something you didn't then there's no point trying to talk rationally to you. ;)

Evolutionary theory is not the belief that evolution happens. It's the theory that we can use evolutionary evidence to make assertions about our origin to explain why we are what we are.

:rolleyes: - of course, that's all new to me. :lol:

And it's of no relevance to what I said.

Is it bollocks. What kind of conclusion is that?

it is the only possible conclusion both linguistically and logically. You know, the same tools you're using to wrongly say I'm wrong. :lol:

We can let evidence guide us as to our development,

exactly - such as the evidence which proves the existence of things outside of any self. It's the same acceptance of evidence that has you wipe your arse after you shit; it's what you live by.

Apart from when you crawl up your own arse within discussions such as this of course, where you start out saying one things and as it gets knocked down you move elsewhere where you think you have firmer ground. And then find it's only sand as well. You might as well be imparting your deep knowledge (PMSL :lol::lol:) of football.

Edited by eFestivals
Link to comment
Share on other sites

no it's not.

Either my senses work, or I'm deluded - and if I'm deluded then this discussion doesn't exist.

So, on the basis that I'm not deluded then my senses MUST work, and therefore if I'm able to know of something then it must exist. Given that this scenario is at the heart of all science then it cannot possibly be unscientific. ;)

no I'm not. I know something is there because it IS there. As you said above, it's not there then it can't be known to be there.

This method gives irrefutable evidence of the existence of things, or a delusion ... but if things are delusions then so's this discussion, and everything is nothing, and you disappear up your own arse in a puff of smoke.

So there is only one way forwards, the same forwards that you use to deduce what you have above (even tho it's wrong) - you can't say what I say is wrong when talking of this subject matter without it also making yourself wrong in your own mind; that is the only way that deductive logic [even deductive logic that gets the wrong answer] can work.

Your and my ideas here are both ideas that work from what has been (truly) sensed - you've sensed that we use senses to know of things; I've sensed that they can only be sensed if they actually exist.

no you didn't. If you're going to pretend that you said something you didn't then there's no point trying to talk rationally to you. ;)

:rolleyes: - of course, that's all new to me. :lol:

And it's of no relevance to what I said.

it is the only possible conclusion both linguistically and logically. You know, the same tools you're using to wrongly say I'm wrong. :lol:

exactly - such as the evidence which proves the existence of things outside of any self. It's the same acceptance of evidence that has you wipe your arse after you shit; it's what you live by.

Apart from when you crawl up your own arse within discussions such as this of course, where you start out saying one things and as it gets knocked down you move elsewhere where you think you have firmer ground. And then find it's only sand as well. You might as well be imparting your deep knowledge (PMSL :lol::lol:) of football.

Edited by feral chile
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Latest Activity

    • In August 2009, in his Spectator blog he wrote about Harriet Harman, deputy leader of the Labour Party, in unflattering terms. Liddle began the article by asking: "So — Harriet Harman, then. Would you? I mean after a few beers obviously, not while you were sober."[27] Tanya Gold wrote in The Guardian that Liddle had delivered a "tissue-thin polemic." Pointing out that it was The Spectator's cover story that week.[28] Rachel Cooke in The Observer nearly two months later recalled finding Liddle's piece "disgusting"[29] Cooke went on to say: "I would still like to do something really unpleasant to the man who wrote [the article]." Liddle said two months later that the Harman column "was supposed to be a parody of guttural, base sexism", a joke he assumed readers would understand. After the negative response from Gold (and then Cooke, among other female journalists) he continued: "And then I suppose I came to the conclusion – gradually – that I must have got it wrong."[30] In June 2014, he said that of those he had offended, Harman was the one person to whom he would apologise.[31] In November 2009, again for The Spectator website, he offered "a quick update on what the Muslim savages are up to," a brief article about the stoning to death of a 20-year-old woman in Somalia after she was accused of adultery, and the similar death of a 13-year-old the year before. He made remarks, considered sarcastic, that read: "Incidentally, many Somalis have come to Britain as immigrants recently, where they are widely admired for their strong work ethic, respect for the law and keen, piercing, intelligence."[32][33] In December 2009, on his Spectator blog, Liddle referred to two black music producers, Brandon Jolie and Kingsley Ogundele, who had plotted to kill Jolie's 15-year-old pregnant girlfriend, as "human filth" and said the incident was not an anomaly. He continued: When he was accused of racism, Liddle said he was instead engaging in a debate about multiculturalism.[35][36] In March 2010 the Press Complaints Commission (PCC) upheld a complaint against Liddle, who became the first journalist to be censured over the contents of a blog, because he had not been able to prove his claim about the crime statistics.[37] After the publication of London crime figures in June 2010, The Sunday Telegraph suggested Liddle was largely right on some of his claims, but that he was probably wrong on his claims about knife crimes and violent sex crimes.[38] In October 2010, Liddle called for the abolition of the Welsh language TV channel S4C as a result of the 2010 Comprehensive Spending Review. In his article for The Spectator, he described Welsh nationalists as "miserable, seaweed munching, sheep-bothering pinch-faced hill-tribes".[39] On 23 May 2013, Liddle wrote about the murder of soldier Lee Rigby near the Royal Artillery Barracks in Woolwich, London. In the original version of a blog article for The Spectator, he referred to the perpetrators as "two black savages".[40] After many objections to his language use,[41] this phrase was modified.[42] Liddle apologised.[40][43] Giving a speech at Durham University in December 2021, Liddle said: "It is fairly easily proven that colonialism is not remotely the major cause of Africa's problems, just as it is very easy to prove that the educational underachievement of British people of Caribbean descent or African Americans is nothing to do with institutional or structural racism."[44] Independent editor rumour and Millwall supporters' website The Guardian reported on 8 January 2010 that the expected purchase of The Independent by Alexander Lebedev, a Russian billionaire, would be followed by the appointment of Liddle as editor.[45] Roy Greenslade wrote on 11 January that the reports were provoking a "major internal and external revolt" by The Independent's staff and readers.[46] The stories about Liddle's posts on Millwall Online apparently further reduced the likelihood of his being offered the job.[47] Finally, on 19 February, Stephen Brook of The Guardian reported that Liddle was no longer in the running for the post.[48] Tim Luckhurst, professor of journalism at the University of Kent, argued that Liddle's prospects of editing The Independent were nullified "by the people behind a viciously intolerant campaign of liberal bigotry".[49] In January 2010, the press drew attention to allegedly racist and misogynist comments posted under the username "monkeymfc"—a name Liddle has used—on Millwall Online, a fan club web forum with no official connection to Millwall Football Club. Liddle attributed some of the comments to opposition fans logging in under his name to embarrass him. He later said he had written some of the posts that were being criticised, including one in support of the BNP excluding Black and Asian people from the party.[50] Another post, in which he joked about not being able to smoke at Auschwitz,[51] led to his being asked to explain what he meant in The Jewish Chronicle.[47] While he said in June 2014 that his comments were taken out of context, he said that he did not regret making them. "No. Never. Absolutely not. I thought about my mates at Millwall Online, God I respect them so much more than these other people, these ghastly f**king people."[31] Stephen Lawrence, disabled and transgender people In November 2011, an article by Liddle for The Spectator suggested the trial of two men accused (and later convicted) of murdering Stephen Lawrence would not be fair.[52] It was referred to the Attorney General Dominic Grieve by the judge for possible contempt of court,[53] and he ordered the jurors not to read it. Having decided that it might have breached a court order, Grieve passed the case on to the Crown Prosecution Service and the Director of Public Prosecutions.[54] The decision that The Spectator was to be prosecuted by the CPS for breaching reporting restrictions was announced on 9 May 2012, with a court hearing scheduled for 7 June, although Liddle as the author was not himself liable for prosecution. Fraser Nelson, the magazine's editor, announced that the prosecution would not be contested,[55] and the magazine pleaded guilty at the hearing. The fine was £3,000, plus £2,000 compensation to Stephen Lawrence's parents and £625 costs.[56] In January 2012, Liddle wrote that many people in the UK were "pretending to be disabled" in his column for The Sun,[57] an opinion defended by James Delingpole.[58] Frances Ryan in The Guardian accused him of "belittling something that on a daily basis affects real people" who can be "a huge benefit to society. Maybe for a month Liddle would like to try that."[59] In May 2015, the Independent Press Standards Organisation (IPSO) upheld a complaint from Trans Media Watch that Liddle had been discriminatory towards Emily Brothers, a blind and transgender Labour candidate at the 2015 general election, in two Sun columns published in December 2014 and January 2015. In commenting in the way he had Liddle had breached two sections of the editors' code.[60][61] Column on poppers and gay sex During a parliamentary debate on the Psychoactive Substances Bill – which "makes it an offence to produce, supply, offer to supply, possess with intent to supply, possess on custodial premises, import or export psychoactive substances"[65] the Conservative politician Crispin Blunt admitted he used poppers: Liddle responded in his Spectator blog: The satirical and current affairs magazine Private Eye described this as hypocritical, pointing out Liddle's account in The Sunday Times of using Viagra in July 2004.[68][69] A spokesperson from the LGBT rights charity Stonewall said of Liddle's remarks: "Comments like this are shocking and damaging, but we wouldn't expect anything less from repeat offending bigots like Rod Liddle."[70] Column on Muslim voters In October 2019, Liddle penned a column in The Spectator commenting on the forthcoming December 2019 UK general election, which suggested that the election should be held on a Muslim holy day to reduce the Labour vote. The column was criticised by senior political figures including Chancellor of the Exchequer Sajid Javid and former Conservative Deputy Prime Minister David Lidington. Liddle defended the content as being humorous. The article also criticised the Labour MP Rosie Duffield's recent speech about her experience of trying to exit an abusive relationship; Duffield described the article as "racist and misogynistic".[74]
    • A true social democrat
    • I thought the same thing I thought when Baresi went which is there sure is a hell of alot of people who don't make the new pension age.
    • 1, The Menzingers- Everything I Ever Saw 2, Quicksand- Bring On The Psychics 3, Radkey- Bedroom Sand  
  • Featured Products

  • Hot Topics

  • Latest Tourdates

×
×
  • Create New...