onewheeldave

What the cyclist did before is irrelevant- that's a serious assault in that video. If the cyclist had grabbed out at the car or arm to save himself, he could easily have been dragged under it. If the cyclist had done something provocative (zero suggestion he had) then assualting him would still not have been appropriate, would it? The longer that videos up, the more idiots are going to try and emulate it. I've reported it to facebook, and, I'm about to report it to the police.

If people break the speeding laws, or the murder laws- if caught they'll be arrested and punished, regardless of whether they consider those laws immoral or not, and, regardless of whether those laws are immoral, or not. Just as those poor victims of the immoral UK anti-homosexuality laws were arrested and punished. That doesn't alter the fundamental fact that they were perfectly right to break those immoral UK anti-homosexuality laws. You could be interpreted as saying here, that those men should have complied with the law, curtailed their romances, refrained from having sex, and, instead, campaigned for a law change! Just to clarify, is that what you're saying? Straight answer to a straight question please (no pun intended). ---------- Post added 31-03-2015 at 17:48 ---------- Yes, I will, cos it's an immoral act. I'll also endeavour to have you arrested, cos I'll happily use the law if it acts against immoral behaviour. ---------- Post added 31-03-2015 at 17:59 ---------- I'm happy to judge (not define) a ridiculous and harmful law like the anti-cannabis laws as immoral (plus, of course, the now defunct UK anti-homosexuality laws). I appreciate there's an obvious problem here, in that, as you say, others could argue that, in their eyes, burglary is OK. I just think the problems arising from your way, far outweigh those from the way I'm proposing i.e. the absurd situation where people are punished (or killed) for disobeying laws that are clearly immoral (e.g. cannabis and anti homosexuality laws). I think our society has been wrecked, and progress slowed to a grinding crawl, by an obsessive need to maintain systems and orders that are blatantly unjust and immoral. Especially when those systems routinely break the rules and laws themselves and yet are beyond accountability. Why is it that we accept, for example, that a person paying their council tax one day late can be financially sanctioned, yet thousands have to wait months for payments owed to them by the same council? Why is it accepted that a person on benefits who makes the slightest error, can be punished to the point of having their lives ruined, yet that same benefit system is absolutely unnacountable for the mistakes it makes.

Oh, I do. Doesn't make it right, but we live in a society where unjust laws are commonplace. Thing about the TV license is, that with a modicum of common sense, you're not going to get caught. Not that it's relevant to me, as I don't use TV these days. Yes, I'm happy for the police to enforce just, moral laws (eg murder and theft) and, I'd be really happy if they ceased to enforce the unjust and immoral laws (e.g. cannabis and most current drug laws) At this point we'd really need to define 'murder' wouldn't we. Certainly if it's defined as 'immoral killing' then it's not OK (though the govt routinely sanctions immoral killings). If murder is defined as 'illegal killing', then that alters things, doesn't it? I think it's much simpler and more productive to deal with the example I brought up, of the past UK anti-homosexual laws, as, at least with those, with the exception of only the most deranged, they were clearly immoral. As you yourself agreed. However, you neglected to answer the actual question, which was- "In your opinion, should a person back then, have followed the anti-homosexuality laws when they knew full well those laws were corrupt and immoral?"

Ironically the law disagrees with you Specifically via the 2009 autism act which clearly states that organisations must make 'reasonable provisions' to cater for the difficulties that autistic people routinely face that NTs do not. Laws designed to compensate, to some small degree, the gross inequalities the autistic (tend to) face when it comes to accessing the oportunities that NTs take for granted (eg employment). Although I will point out that, in the context of this thread, i've made zero claims of 'being special' or asked for allowances. What i've done is state 'hey- I'm autistic, (most of) you are not; it's a scientific fact that there are serious communication issues between the autistic and NTs, I've got considerably more experience of overcoming the communication blocks between auters and NTs than 99% of NTs do, so here's some suggestions to head off some of those blocks. Hopefully a more moral society? One where, several decades back, if a govt tried to legislate against 2 men making love and sending police in to brutalise and imprison them, a large portion of the population would have stood up, said, 'no way, that's immoral' and done what was necessary to put an end to it. As they would have done in Germany when the first anti-jew laws were brought in. Imagine what that could have headed-off/prevented. Are you seriously promoting the following of immoral laws? Speed laws aren't immoral dude No. I'll live in my society and disobey any immoral laws I wish to. As do many others, for example, anyone, including no doubt, several following this thread, who routinely, enjoy smoking a bit of cannabis now and again (not me, but I fully approve of anyone who does so).

Here's a link to a FOI request on the proportion of claiments who were sanctioned from 2007-2012. Note it's from the gov.uk site: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/223287/foi_4383_2012.pdf proportion sanctioned was 19% i.e. from 2007-2012 almost 1 fifth of claiments were sanctioned. I'm not willing to believe that 1/5th of those claiming were malingerers, or, incapable of turning up to appointments on time- are you? I'm very capable of believing, as many have claimed, that they'd not received the letters informing them of said appointments, as I know that royal mail is far from 100% reliable, and, from personal experience, that the DWPs letters, sent 2nd class, and late, often, at the best of times, will arrive the day before, or, the same day, as the appointment. It's a disgrace that decent human beings are denied the benefits they are legally entitled to, when they had not been informed of the appointment they missed, and, as usual, the DWP is totally unnacountable for it's abuse.

:thumbsup: I strongly suspect the same. Bear in mind though, that motorists are under attack from many sides- we live in a culture which (wrongly) promotes the hell out of motoring (via marketing/advertising) where the social/job infrastructure is intrinsically bound up with car possession, yet motorists are routinely financially fleeced with ever rising compulsory insurance and exhorbitant fuel costs, then raped by councils with parking costs plus whatever speed camera scams they can get away with. No wonder some feel jealous and resentfull when they see cyclists (in rush hour) getting from A to B way while they bake in a gridlocked jam. Of course. And they are. Absolutely not. Mandatory helmets are a barrier to cycling- they reduce cycling numbers and thus directly increase the risks for the fewer remaining cyclists. In addition, there is no evidence that they're that usefull when it comes to reducing injuries, and, there is at least one small study which concluded that motor vehicle drivers pass closer when passing helmeted cyclists. Every single major cyclist advocacy group firmly opposes mandatory helmet laws for cyclists for reasons like those above.

Stuff you dude- it ain't a 'card' it's a fact. And a main characterisitic of autism is communication difficulties when interacting with neurotypicals (as our systems of social interaction/communication are evolved/designed by NTs, for NTs). I'm pro-actively facing up to that by attempting to head off such communication issues- part of that is facilitated, IMO, by identifying myself as what I am- i.e. autistic. That way, those few NTs who can accept that when a clearly intelligent individual says something that seems to make no sense at first glance it may be worth looking at it from a slightly different perspective; can have a chance to do so and, hopefully, understand what I'm actually saying. ---------- Post added 30-03-2015 at 17:58 ---------- I'm not saying people should 'choose' what laws to obey in some kind of 'dice man' fashion. What I am saying is that if a law is 'wrong'/immoral in the eyes of a person, it's worth them considering things like not adhering to it, or disobeying it. Just to clear this up, could you answer this straightforward question? i.e. if a person can see that a given law is immoral, in that it is a law that is clearly designed to maintain a corrupt principle, and, causes great harm- do you think that people should follow it? Let's not talk about murder, let's talk about the UK anti-homosexuality laws that were overturned several decades back. In your opinion, should a person back then, have followed the anti-homosexuality laws when they knew full well those laws were corrupt and immoral?

This really is a fundamental point that should be recognised whenever someone is proposing anything that will put people off cycling (e.g. 'driving tests' for cyclists, compulsory helmets for cyclists etc) Cyclone has worded it here very well and consisely. I've brought up this same point many times on other threads and one this one, but for whatever reason, it seems to not make much impact on those hostile to cycling- similar to pointing out that road tax doesn't exist

Yes. Because to impose testing on cyclists would reduce their numbers and thus make the roads even more dangerous to cyclists. Bear in mind though, that most cyclists already have driving licenses anyway. No, I'm not saying that people would stop cycling if made to take a test- real world statistics are saying that- just as compulsory helmet use has led to lower cycling numbers in every country where it's been imposed (and hence led to an increase in cycling injuries, due to the fact that less cyclists on the roads=more danger).

No- because that would cut the numbers of cyclists down still further, leading to roads being even less safe to cycle on. However- spending some serious time cycling on the roads should be a requirement for any (able bodied) driver to get their license. Then they all drivers would appreciate exactly how vulnerable cyclists are and how different a manouver that seems innocuous inside a car, can be to a cyclist outside the car.

Spending some serious time cycling on the roads should be a requirement for any (able bodied) driver to get their license. Then they all drivers would appreciate exactly how vulnerable cyclists are and how different a manouver that seems innocuous inside a car, can be to a cyclist outside the car.

It is my society- just as much as it is yours. If you want to talk morality, then you need to get your hands dirty with some moral discussion, rather than hiding behind a set of arbitrary laws which clearly are based on things other than actual morality. ---------- Post added 28-03-2015 at 17:34 ---------- ???????wow! ---------- Post added 28-03-2015 at 17:35 ---------- I'm hazy on why you feel the need to 'prove' that I believe things which I've already clearly stated I believe on several occasions? Yes, I'm OK with some laws being enforced- generally those that serve a genuine moral purpose, such as protecting people from burglary and murder. Whilst not being OK with some other laws- generally those based on maintaining unjust social hierachical structures/financial interests or which cause actual harm. That would include our bizarre and illogical drug laws. You being such a fan of science and proper evidence might want to look into those drug laws, as the evidence clearly indicates they are seriously flawed and cause actual harm. Be interesting to know how you reconcile your support of said laws (at least to the extent you advocate others to obey them) with the fact that they contradict the evidence. ---------- Post added 28-03-2015 at 17:44 ---------- No. You're right, I don't Nope, wrong again. I'd suggest a good way to know what I think is just to listen to what I actually say. As you know, I am autistic, and hence, communicate with words. You seem to think I communicate with subtle insinuations. I don't. I can't. I'm autistic. Of the 'high functioning' (aspergers) variety. What I do think, is that how we act should be based on morality, and, that if our societies laws go against morality (as they often do), then disobeying them is not a bad thing. That's what I think. Any interpretations of your own that you draw from what I say (like those above) are yours, not mine.

There's a lot of idiots about. There really are a lot of idiots about. A lot of those in cars actually believe they pay a thing called 'road tax'

Because means testing: 1. is degrading and insulting for many people, especially the elderly and vulnerable- it would result in many who need it and are entitled to it to, not getting it 2. it would cost more to administer than it would save from money from those not entitled to it who currently get it (in italics, because it may well save money overall when the figures include those who are entitled to it and need it who can't or won't claim due to means testing- I'm assuming that you wouldn't consider it moral to save money in that way? It is an assumption as, these days, many, especially politicians seem to consider it fine for vulnerable people to suffer/die if it saves cash)

Clearly it's easy to show that anecdotal evidence can tend to be flawed in many ways. The danger is that that can lead to a very dense smokescreen and take attention away from the interesting question of whether the alternative, ie double-blind scientific testing is itself that much more reliable. Certainly, in my experience of looking at scientific study based evidence on nutritional issues, I came to the conclusion that it's a real mess. For any major nutritional hypothesis, such as, for example, is dietary saturated fat good/bad for health, both positions were backed by various well qualified/respected nutritional experts, with both sides citing large numbers of scientific studies to back up their views. Views that were logically contradictory.

Even if his JSA is santioned, your friend is still entitled to housing benefit. It's automatically stopped when the JSA santion occurs, but, he's still entitled to housing benefit as he has no income, he needs to contact the housing benefit office and make a claim. Perhaps you could go down to Howden house with him, as he's unable to do so on his own? From his aversion to dealing with official letters and refusal to enter court buildings, there may be a chance he's got aspergers syndrome, in which case, if he gets diagnosed, he will have access to help via an occupational therapist/key worker who will take on the things he can't do himself (dealing with courts/benefits). If he's not aspergeric, it's very likely he will be diagnosed with a mental health issue, in which case, there may still be similar help available.

Axolotls are easy to keep- just a decent size tank, no heater necessary. He'll find them a lot more interesting than a water snail. https://www.google.co.uk/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#safe=off&q=axolotl http://www.axolotl.org/requirements.htm

Like I've mentioned a couple of times already, I don't steal TV, as I don't have a TV capable of receiving live broadcasts. I do support anyone who does have such a TV and who doesn't buy a BBC license. As you consider yourself capable of judging which laws are OK to break and which aren't, you'll presumably be able to understand that I also consider myself capable of that judgement?

It's utterly irrelevant. Any sizable group of people at a bus stop will likely contain individuals who will bang on the bus if the driver decides to pull away without letting people on.

A possible solution might be for fans to start videoing these incidences of buses ignoring customers, then just bung it all up on youtube (I would have suggested submitting it to the transport managers, but sadly, in the world we live in today, it's likely that they'd just ignore it).

Yes- it's called forming an opinion. In my opinion, based on thinking/analysis I've done, the laws concerning the BBC license and the laws on cannabis are stupid/harmful/unfair. I've also formed an opinion that disobeying such laws is OK. You've done the same- you've formed the opinions that the laws on TV and cannabis are not stupid/harmful/unfair, and, that it's not okay to disobey such laws, or, indeed, to disobey any laws. i.e. you get to decide not only what's stupid/harmful/unfair, but, you have the unspeakable arrogance to dictate a general moral judgement that anyone, breaking any law (no matter how stupid, harmfull or immoral that law may be), is necessarily in the wrong. Don't kid yourself that I'm making a judgement here, and that you're not. As Sartre said, we all choose- choice is unavoidable, even those who delude themselves that they aren't choosing, are, in the act of not choosing, making a choice. So just because you're in support of the way things are- the status quo (where law is concerned), don't make out that it's me taking some kind of moral high ground and making judgements I'm not entitled to make. Cos, to the extent that you are disagreeing with me, then you're equally making judgements that equally affect others. Yes. I fully support laws that protect people against violence and robbery. Whilst simultaneously challenging and, advocating disobedience/breaking of, BBC licence laws and cannabis laws. To me, the more people who don't fork out for a BBC license, the better, as- 1. it's heartening to see, for once, the general public displaying some intelligence and balls, and actually standing up against this crap 2. the more they refuse to engage in the little stupidities like the BBC license, the more they're likely to start becoming aware of the really harmful ones like the ridiculous laws on cannabis and drugs, which clearly do cause a lot of harm and which are deeply unjust.

That is mushroom lane- it's bisected by winter street and so goes both left and right off it. https://www.google.co.uk/maps/place/Mushroom+Ln,+Sheffield,+South+Yorkshire+S3+7NZ/@53.3838267,-1.4893129,17z/data=!4m2!3m1!1s0x4879789d3061e1d1:0x707f56727ea80b44

When the medical profession demonised butter/saturated fats (on the basis of 'studies') it kicked off a massive public information campaign which has run ever since, notifying the public that if they continued to consume saturated ('unhealthy') fats, they would be at considerably greater risk of heart disease. Instead, the public were told, they should eat 'healthy' fats i.e. switch to vegetable oils and, instead of butter, switch to margarine. Margarine in those days containing copious amounts of trans fats, now known to be the worst fats to consume due to the fact that they provenly kill people, and, banned in several countries and soon, no doubt, to be banned in the rest. Now- don't get exited again, because I know that, at the time, no one realised trans fats were deadly, so it's all cool, cos the medical profession acted 'on the best available evidence at the time'. (Despite making zero effort to actually look for evidence that the gunk they recommended was safe to eat). Nevertheless, all those killed by following the medical advice died anyway- but, as you say, not the medical professions fault, as they didn't know. Now some people- all hippies, nutters and cranks who were too lazy to check out the 'evidence' at the time, thought, whoa- this margarine stuffs really new- not been around throughout most of human evolution, and, it appears to be made in factories. Based on that kind of 'reasoning' they went contrary to the 'best medical advice/evidence of the time' (though I'll point out once again, there was zero actual evidence to indicate that margarine/vegetable oil was actually safe to eat) and didn't eat the margarine with trans fats in it, so they didn't die as a result of eating trans fats. I've studied health/diet and the medical profession a hell of a lot- I've spent thousands of hours, somewhat obsessively (I'm aspergic, have had a lot of time on my hands and am very, very interested in my health)- researching the whole field, from new age cranks to qualified & respected medical professionals medical (yes, there are many proper doctors who are in total opposition to the directions orthodox medicine has/is going). And what happened with trans fats is far from an isolated occurance. After decades of demonising butter/saturated fats, 2 recent high profile meta studies are indicating zero evidence that saturated fats are harmful in any way. Maybe they'll stand, maybe they'll fall. As an aspergic, I keep things simple- when a worldwide organisation to which is entrusted the health of the public, can spend over a century and trillions of £ studying a question so basic as whether saturated fats are good or bad for you, and come up with utter confusion, I question the validity and usefullness of that system. When many medical professionals who are part of that system ,themselves question how it has got into this state, and, start talking seriously about the pervasive influence of commercial interests (pharmacutical companies) utterly corrupting the medical studies system- then I think it's time to take notice. Previously that stuff was restricted to conspiracy theorists- now we've got long term, respected, practicing GPs and MDs coming out with it. Our medical system is a business. It's primarily about £$. Hence it's focus on dishing out profitable treatments (anti depressents, life long drug therapies, expensive, invasive & harmful procedures (eg colonoscopies) as opposed to prevention (via diet etc, which do not bring in a profit). Buy real food, eat real food, be healthy. Eat processed 'food' and man made vegetable oils, and you may as well be eating plastic. Look around you at what happens to people who eat processed 'food' long term- the most medically advanced nations in the world are beset by epic numbers of victims of obesity, heart disease, diabetes and cancer; while those in the third world who aren't starving and have reasonable sanitation, and, who eat real food, are remarkably free of those conditions, despite (or because of) lacking an advanced medical system.

Just briefly- the distinction is that of 1. vegetable oils (or vegetable fats) and 2. vegetable oil. Very different things: one comes in plants (vegetable fats are naturally occuring in trace amounts in all plants throughout all of history), the other is found in bottles. Vegetable oil is new to the last 200 years (with the exception of cold pressed olive oil) and its use in the human food chain has gone from zero to the current situation where it's in pretty much all processed 'foods'. If you believe it's not harmful and you're happy to eat an industrial product that requires extensive chemical deoderization to make it eatable without retching, then great I'll stick to real food, that's mainly been in the human food chain for much of human evolution, or at least for several thousand years (in the case of the relative newbies like legumes, grains etc). And, regardless of whether you like it or not, I'll continue to recommend others do the same. And if, or, more likely when, the nutritional science system catches up and starts telling us that actually, vegetable oils are pretty dodgy (just as it 'discovered' trans fats were, after decades of urging us to eat them), then maybe you'll be glad I did.

I can no more support it than you can dispute it. But, obviously chuggers on the streets working full days need to be getting a full days pay, as do their team leaders, managers, CEOs, plus cover all the costs of buildings for those workers, and fuel to transport them. All that comes out of the donations they get from the public. Simple fact is that people are now disputing that as a model- they don't want their cash going towards sustaining that. That's before we address the open hostility, evident in any thread on this forum that mentions chuggers, that many of the public feel about being approached and harrassed when out shopping. Some of that hostility is bound to end up rubbing off on the actual charities. The marketers (professional deceivers) who've set this up have done a very good job of convincing everyone that this is now the only sustainable model for running a charity- it's become a self-fulfilling prophecy. That's been very beneficial to the marketers who are now guaranteed business, as every charity now needs to employ a CEO and marketing/chugging team to have any hope of competing/surviving against all the other charites who employ CEOs and marketing teams.