onewheeldave

Morning

 

I need a £1500.00 loan... I have bad credit from my past and cant get credit anywhere. I don't have family that can help me i'm not looking for people to comment saying I don't need a loan etc.

 

If you can help me or know of a private loan shark please can you private message me.

 

I'm looking for £1500.00 for 24 months.

 

The reason I am wanting this is to consolidate my debts so I have one monthly payment.

 

Thanks guys

Before going to a loan shark, I think you should access one of the free debt advice organisations, who are experts on handling debts. Make sure you use one of the free ones, as there are companies out there (scammers) who charge a fee.

Another reason to do this, is that there may be some of your debts that you don't have to pay (due to the company not having followed correct procedures, which, sometimes, means the 'debt' is invalid) and the free debt management advisors will be able to spot them.

Also, posting on here could be a good idea-

http://www.moneysavingexpert.com/

---------- Post added 31-01-2013 at 12:30 ----------

Here's a link to some debt advice-

http://www.moneysavingexpert.com/loans/debt-help-plan

Really i'd says common sense tells you

 

Road = Vehicle right of way

Pavement = Pedestrian right of way

 

Cars shouldnt park on pavement unless it leaves enough room for a double buggy to pass & People shouldnt really walk on the Road as its for Vehicles.

Common sense tells most people that if the pavement is icy/snowy and that walking on it carries a high chance of them slipping and possibly breaking some bones, and, the road is clear of snow/ice and there's currently little traffic on it, that walking on the road is the best course of action.

Especially in places like walkley/crookes with lots of downhill pavements with an even higher probability of slipping.

Those rates apply to all businesses in meadowhall- plenty of which don't charge any more for their produce than the same business elsewhere.

 

The meadowhall pound shop, for example, charges one pound for items, just as do pound shops anywhere.

 

How does your hypothesis account for that?

The pound shop is a chain. Chains always have high profile shops that lose money for tax purposes.

So you reckon the meadowhall pound shop makes a loss? Fair enough, if you provide some proof or a link, then you may have a point: personally, though I don't know for sure, I really do doubt that the meadowhall pound shop makes a loss.

The smallest units in Meadowhall are tens of thousands of pounds a year rent, plus bills, plus tax. A tattooist would have to charge an enormous amount and be constantly full to make any profit. People won't pay double the normal rate to use a poor tattooist whilst shopping in Meadowhall.

Those rates apply to all businesses in meadowhall- plenty of which don't charge any more for their produce than the same business elsewhere.

The meadowhall pound shop, for example, charges one pound for items, just as do pound shops anywhere.

How does your hypothesis account for that?

I doubt you'd ever see a decent tattooist in Meadowhall. Good tattooists charge a lot, and are not interested in passing trade as they are by appointment only and have waiting lists for months. People travel across the country for a good tattooist, and don't care where the shop is so it makes the most sense to keep overheads down. Meadowhall's rents a far too high to make tattoo shop's profitable there.

I didn't specify the 'quality' of tattooist though, did I? There are plenty of tattooists not in the 'fine art' category who do make use of passing trade, and, who would happily set up in Meadowhall.

But you're right- the type of tattooist who are primarily appointment only, would probably not be interested in setting up in Meadowhall.

Sorry- forgot to mention the 2 tattoo shops in the forum as well.

And yes, you may well see one in Meadowhall in the future: the only reason there are not currently several, is down to the bizarre prejudices that linger around tattooing.

why are all these tattoo shops sited in the " disadvantaged " areas of town

They're not. Thou Art is on Chapel walk off fargate. Q tattoo is in Orchard Square off Fargate. Feline is on Ecclesall Road.

The ones that are in 'disadvantaged areas' are likely there for the same reason other businesses are there- cheaper rents on the shop/premises.

---------- Post added 08-01-2013 at 12:03 ----------

Id love to see these young girls with tattoos covering the arms, face and legs and men for that matter when they are seventy years old, what sight they will look then.

Most 70 years olds will 'look a sight' to those who don't like the look of ageing, regardless of any body art they may have/not have.

A 70 year old with tattoos, will look as good, to those lacking prejudice against tattoos, as those without, probably better.

You don't like tattoos- fair enough: no-one cares what you think

http://imgur.com/gallery/972GU

 

 

 

I still see no evidence for your assertion,, no evidence that the pollsters actually understood the subtleties of what they were being asked, is not my experience of usage and even if it were, just reinforces the appeal to common usage fallacy. So you still lose all round.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The proof's in the understanding of the etymology. That's the only evidence I need meaning it's entirely irrelevant if 99% of the population agree with you, they'd be just as wrong as you've been throughout this thread.

Etymology is a relevant factor, certainly, but, just one of several.

The actual meaning of 'meaning' is... a bit complex- I could go into it, but I think you'd have problems understanding it, so, to be brief, I'll say say that the meaning of a word is, effectively, the way it is used.

Dave, can you yourself make the positive claim that god Doesn't exist?..you should have really been asked that question at the beginning

Anyone can claim God doesn't exist. It's not a claim I've made though.

During your original argument, you claimed an atheist who believes god doesn't exist is making a positive claim. I picked up on this because you are confusing belief with statements of fact.

 

An atheist can believe a god doesn't exist without making the positive claim - as a statement of fact - that god does not exist.

 

Because your argument was sloppy, I was trying to help you correct, or clarify, what you meant.

 

So this: an atheist who believes God doesn't exist...is making a positive claim (God doesn't exist)

 

Should have been replaced with something like this: as atheist who claims god does not exist is making a positive claim.

 

 

It wouldn't, of course, have helped you much because, as others have pointed out, the rest of your argument is sloppy.

Like I've said a couple of times now-

A totally different argument that I'm not going to get involved in.

Argumentum ad populum. I bet more people call a dolphin a fish, but it's still incorrect.

Dolphin aren't fish though.

Absolutely, which reinforces the fact that your point is no more than just your opinion.

The point is that you've been shown to be wrong.

 

 

 

I never said you did state a number. You simply implied you knew a larger number of people who use the second definition as opposed to the first and as you already know of several people on here who don't it implied that you know more in your own circle of friends.

Either that or you're being dishonest again (just an observation).

 

 

 

Have you got a shred of evidence that the opposite is true? If so, why not post it?

And open to misinterpretation and reinvention.

As is everything. It is, though, less open to misinterpration than what you're peddling, precisely as it is simpler and clearer.

 

 

now if you can't even explain which definition you were calling "narrow", then...

Wow! Is that a sceptical community 'in-joke' you guys must have such fun at your meets

You clearly were, look...

 

By 'narrow category' I was talking about that minority of atheists in the sceptical community who steadfastly maintain, despite all evidence and reason to the contrary, that 'atheist' doesn't mean both "without belief in God", and "belief that God does not exist".

Yes, and if I ever decide to express an opinion I'll let you know before hand but until I do I can assure you I'll be sticking strictly to facts. The fact that you don't accept this doesn't change the fact that it's a fact!

 

There you go with that same old fallacy again.

Which, as has been explained numerous times by other posters, is just a subset of 'lacks a belief in god' which means it covers 'believes god does not exist' in the the first category.

 

The 'proof' as you put it lies in understanding the etymology of the word. So, whether you accept it or not a fact is still a fact.

 

At last, something we agree on.

However I don't think I've ever come across a poster who posts so much opinion and yet hasn't looked into this theory or that theory, doesn't watch links that people supply or posts videos that go back years that have been debated ad nauseum for months on end but who seems to think they are something special and argue against points being made by other posters when they do nothing of the sort. This simply shows you up to be doing nothing more than attempting to destroy the strawman atheist that exists nowhere other than in your head.

There's really nobody as dangerous as somebody who is so self opinionated and yet it's based on nothing but his own, quite often, completely discredited ideology that nobody else accepts other than himself.

 

I simply don't believe that you know;

1/As many people as you claim to know that routinely use the second definition.

2/That the odd person you may know who uses the second definition doesn't understand how it differs from, and is connected to, the first definition and probably uses it because it's quicker to say and/or they actually mean the first definition anyway.

1/ I've not even mentioned how many I know- not sure how you can disbelieve a number you don't even know

2/ No- you're mistaken, they do know that 'belief that god doesn't exist' and 'lack of belief in god' are totally different beliefs

Then you really ought to be clearer about what you mean. By saying that you don't align yourself with the first definition, it seems to suggest that you align yourself with the second (belief that there is no God/s)

 

 

 

 

So which definition were you claiming is the narrower one?

But it's not a different argument. You claimed in your argument "an atheist who believes God doesn't exist...is making a positive claim (God doesn't exist),..."

 

That's cos they are.

 

So show me how an atheist "who believes God doesn't exist" is making a positive claim that a god doesn't or cannot exist.

By believing it.

OK. Show where an atheist who believes there is no god, is claiming god or gods do not exist.

Like I said before-

A totally different argument that I'm not going to get involved in.

'Believes God does not exist' is a subset of 'lacks belief in God', unless of course you can think of a way in which someone who believes God does not exist can also somehow have a belief that God exists.

 

jb

I know it's a subset- what's your point?

But that's the argument you clearly setup:

 

 

 

 

 

 

In your argument above, neither is making a claim.

So not only is onewheeldave still keen to promote the narrower definition of atheist, he has also admitted that he actually places himself firmly in that category to prove that such atheists do exist.

Proof is not necessary, it's a fact that there are atheists who consider 'atheist' to mean 'believes God does not exist'- at least 2 have posted on this thread, and, you may recall this thread with it's poll showing that the majority of respondees believed that 'atheist'='The belief that there is no God '

http://www.sheffieldforum.co.uk/showthread.php?t=1034412&highlight=atheism&page=31

it's a safe bet, I think, that at least some of them were atheists?

So not only is onewheeldave still keen to promote the narrower definition of atheist, he has also admitted that he actually places himself firmly in that category to prove that such atheists do exist.

To promote it as being as valid as your preferred defintion.

i.e. I'm actually promoting, not substituting your definition with a 'narrower' alternative, but, in contrast, promoting the fact that both definitions are valid.

Which, if you think about, is even 'broader' than you, with your insistence on just the one

 

 

It would be good if could now convince me why I should lose my agnosticism.

Saying I believe god doesn't exist isn't the same as saying god does not exist.

A totally different argument that I'm not going to get involved in.

If that is what you meant then why did you claim that there are many atheists out there who do not fit into my 'narrow category'?

I didn't Jimmy.

I used the phrase 'narrow category', refering to that group of atheists who are in the sceptical movement (as opposed to that much greater number of atheists not in the sceptical movement, who often consider 'atheist' to mean 'believes God does not exist).

It's an open source phrase- just because you later used it to mean something different, doesn't mean that when I used it I meant it in the sense you did.