Hot Heart Posted May 28, 2012 Report Share Posted May 28, 2012 That phrasing sounds far too vague, especially when the article references what sort of answers they expected. Pretty much everything the AQA spokesman says sums it up for me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deanb Posted May 28, 2012 Author Report Share Posted May 28, 2012 There is no reason to single out Jews or any other one religious group. If you want it to be about religion, then ask "Why are some people prejudiced against religious groups?" It's absolutely about the phrasing. If the word had been Muslims or Buddhists or Scientologists it would have been pulled up just the same. Well, maybe not scientologists... But it's for RE. Of course you're going to have questions asking about specific religions. It most likely asks similar questions on other religions too. But it's not like the "Jewish Chronicle" is going to be offended on the question of "why are some folks prejudiced against muslims?". You can't really just have a vague question, especially when different religious groups have different reasons for the prejudices against them. You're gonna have to get down to specifics. edit: In other news the "no cookie law" is now in effect: http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2012/05/from-now-on-britains-cookie-law-prohibits-tracking-without-consent http://news.cnet.com/8301-1023_3-57442294-93/what-britons-need-to-know-about-u.k-cookie-law/ Thing is, this is an american-based site ran by a British citizen. So does it get affected by the law or not? 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post TheMightyEthan Posted May 28, 2012 Popular Post Report Share Posted May 28, 2012 From that BBC article: Education Secretary Michael Gove said to suggest anti-Semitism could ever be explained was "insensitive and, frankly, bizarre." I understand why it offended people, but this is a retarded outlook as well. It makes me think of after September 11 how whenever someone suggested that we might want to understand why Al Qaeda hates us so much they were branded as an apologist and anti-American. This idea that attempting to understand someones motivations is the same as justifying their behavior is what's bizarre to me. People, even bad people, have reasons for their behavior. Even if those reasons are irrational or based on false beliefs they still have them. People aren't cartoon villains who just want to do things for the sake of being evil. 5 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thursday Next Posted May 28, 2012 Report Share Posted May 28, 2012 Understanding why someone prejudges you is one thing. Trying to understand why a group that you are not a part of prejudges another group that you are not a part of is different. 1. It invites you to think about the victimised group in a negative light. 2. Self reflection presents the opportunity to affect change. If you are American and think, "Maybe people in the Middle East prejudge Americans because we as a nation gifted land that wasn't America's to people who had no right to it, displacing an indigenous population, and continue to back the settlers in the face of mounting atrocities while our leaders shrug their shoulders and insist that their hands are tied because they can't afford to lose the Jewish vote." then you can affect change by voting for leaders who pledge to support the UN in maintaining that no one has sovereignty over Jerusalem and that the borders agreed on by Israel should be adhered to. 3. A non-Jew reflecting on why people might hate the Jews provides no such opportunity. As an outsider to the Jewish community you will at best have your criticisms or observations taken under advisement. And at worst be branded anti-semetic. I would have no issue with the question if it were issued by a Jewish School to Jewish pupils. I'm all for self reflection. A multifaith organisation asking this question to children of various faiths (or no faith at all) could well cause Jewish children to feel like prejudice against them is inevitable and justifiable, and for non Jewish children could reinforce any cross faith segregation. Basically I think it's a crap question that is more likely to get children thinking about how Jews are different than how religious prejudice works. If no one else here feels the same way, I'm cool with that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheMightyEthan Posted May 28, 2012 Report Share Posted May 28, 2012 I would have no issue with the question if it were issued by a Jewish School to Jewish pupils. I'm all for self reflection. A multifaith organisation asking this question to children of various faiths (or no faith at all) could well cause Jewish children to feel like prejudice against them is inevitable and justifiable, and for non Jewish children could reinforce any cross faith segregation. Basically I think it's a crap question that is more likely to get children thinking about how Jews are different than how religious prejudice works. If no one else here feels the same way, I'm cool with that. I do see this point too. In college in one of my classes we had a presentation about diversity, and at one point they seriously had us get into groups and come up with as many racial/ethnic/whatever slurs as we could. I don't have any idea what they thought that would do besides reinforce prejudices. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deanb Posted June 3, 2012 Author Report Share Posted June 3, 2012 So we've being trying to figure out who is next in line if the royal barge was to sink. We hit a stumbling block with Anne, cos we couldn't figure out if she was either before or after Andrew, and if they're even on the barge or not. Also my grandad had some republican grumblings to which my grandma responded with "Would you rather we have a dictatorship?". We quickly gave up explaining that's not the only choices, though she did at least correctly remark that with voting in we ended up with Cameron which was a general depressed murmur of agreement from the room. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheFlyingGerbil Posted June 3, 2012 Report Share Posted June 3, 2012 Anne wouldn't be queen because she has brothers. Daughters don't get to be Queen unless there are no brothers even if she is the eldest child. They have recently changed that though so if the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge has a girl first she would be Queen even if they went on to have a son. I like having the Royals. I think they more than earn their keep. The way our Parliament is set up we don't need a political leader and god knows we don't need more of those anyway. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deanb Posted June 3, 2012 Author Report Share Posted June 3, 2012 Are we sure on that one though? Cos I'm sure the laws of succession were changed last year so it's eldest first, regardless of gender. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheMightyEthan Posted June 3, 2012 Report Share Posted June 3, 2012 From what (admittedly little) I know about it I thought that only applied to people not yet born, that it didn't change the existing line of succession for people who are already living. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deanb Posted June 5, 2012 Author Report Share Posted June 5, 2012 http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/jun/04/jubilee-pageant-unemployed Well I guess that means the Jubilee stuff is a bit cheaper... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheFlyingGerbil Posted June 5, 2012 Report Share Posted June 5, 2012 I suppose it's better than tesco... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Battra92 Posted June 8, 2012 Report Share Posted June 8, 2012 http://www.guardian....eant-unemployed Well I guess that means the Jubilee stuff is a bit cheaper... Nothing like slave labor to celebrate monarchy. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deanb Posted June 9, 2012 Author Report Share Posted June 9, 2012 http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/jun/08/immigration-rules-couples-stark-choice Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alex Heat Posted June 10, 2012 Report Share Posted June 10, 2012 http://www.guardian....es-stark-choice I can definitely understand the intent behind May's idea. Hell, it seems like the kind of thing people in the states would want. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deanb Posted June 12, 2012 Author Report Share Posted June 12, 2012 So John Major today at the Levenson Enquiry put Murdoch in the stink by saying how Murdoch has asked Majors' gov't to change stance on Europe or lose support of his papers. (You can guess the response given Blair came into power on the next election) Murdoch had previously denied making any requests of prime ministers. Oh n CofE are going all defensive with the gay marriage thing. "Oh it'll change the defintion of marriage. Make it holllow" all that bullcrap. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheMightyEthan Posted June 12, 2012 Report Share Posted June 12, 2012 Oh n CofE are going all defensive with the gay marriage thing. "Oh it'll change the defintion of marriage. Make it holllow" all that bullcrap. They should come over here, they'd fit right in. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deanb Posted June 12, 2012 Author Report Share Posted June 12, 2012 It's funny that of all the denominations to moan about sanctity of marriage it's Church of England. The one made so Henry VIII could get a divorce. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deanb Posted June 21, 2012 Author Report Share Posted June 21, 2012 Heard joke once: Man goes to doctor. Says he's depressed. Says media and national leaders out to get him. Says he feels all alone in a threatening world and that he made an error of judgement. Doctor says "Treatment is simple. Great comedian Jimmy Carr is in town tonight. Go and see him. That should pick you up." Man bursts into tears. Says "But Doctor... I am Jimmy Carr." Though Mr Cameron put his foot right in it with his "morally wrong" statement. That was an open invitation for media to have a nosey at Cameron n Tories tax affairs. Also I may have missed this but why specifically are media targeting Carr? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheFlyingGerbil Posted June 21, 2012 Report Share Posted June 21, 2012 (edited) Here's what Jimmy Carr was doing: edit: it may have reduced his income tax levels to as low as 1%. It's tax avoidance, (where people legally minimise their tax bill) not evasion so is not illegal. But if it is an entirely made up construct to avoid paying the correct amount of tax it may be tax abuse and then he can be asked to pay the money back. While I think tax avoidance to that sort of extent is morally repugnant, I don't think it is appropriate for a PM to name individual people like that. Jimmy Carr won't have done this himself, he's got an accountant and we don't know what they've said to each other about how far to go in the tax avoidance thing so it's hard to know where the blame lies. Also Jimmy Carr may have been targeted as he was only recently making jokes about Barclays trying to do a tax avoidance scheme on some of its profits. Edited June 21, 2012 by TheFlyingGerbil 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hot Heart Posted June 21, 2012 Report Share Posted June 21, 2012 And for some perspective. http://jameswelch.tumblr.com/post/25569370348 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deanb Posted June 21, 2012 Author Report Share Posted June 21, 2012 Yeah I should maybe have added that info for folks not aware of the current goings on. edit: Sure the Vodafone thing was/is totally fucked up, but so is the tax avoidance on many of the super-rich. Even if through the various loopholes n shit it's "legitimate" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hot Heart Posted June 21, 2012 Report Share Posted June 21, 2012 Oh, yeah, I'm not defending Jimmy Carr's actions. Just that the problem is so widespread, there are much bigger issues at play. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thursday Next Posted June 22, 2012 Report Share Posted June 22, 2012 If I was in a position where I could pay less tax without breaking the law. I'd do it. It's for the government to implement a proper tax system and for the populous to obey it. If the government don't like people avoiding tax, then they should work to close the loopholes. Jimmy Carr is a comedian, not a tax lawyer. It would be unfair to expect him to know the difference between "legitimate tax planning" and "morally wrong tax avoidance". I also think that the backlash from the public was uncalled for. Let's see everyone who criticised him for paying as little tax as legally possible pay some extra taxes voluntarily. Yeah, didn't think so. Cameron was well out of order commenting on Carr's personal finances. Especially given that he 1. immediately backtracked and said he wouldn't comment on individual cases and 2. Has benefited enormously from his dad's tax avoidance. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hot Heart Posted June 22, 2012 Report Share Posted June 22, 2012 (edited) His words were: "I met with a financial advisor and he said to me 'Do you want to pay less tax? It's totally legal'. I said 'Yes'." I'm sure you're aware of 'the spirit of the law'. Considering what he earns it just looks greedy, and I find it indefensible. Bringing up the 'extra voluntary tax' bit is quite frankly beside the point and reeks of what has been happening in the US. And, yeah, I'm in agreement that the law needs 'fixing' but there will always be people and companies there to abuse what loopholes they can find. I doubt that will ever change. Nor would I ever take a statement by Cameron about morality seriously. Edited June 22, 2012 by Hot Heart Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheFlyingGerbil Posted June 22, 2012 Report Share Posted June 22, 2012 Jimmy Carr is a comedian, not a tax lawyer. It would be unfair to expect him to know the difference between "legitimate tax planning" and "morally wrong tax avoidance". Since he's specifically made jokes about rich people and companies avoiding tax, even if he doesn't know tax law, he should have at least said to his accountant don't do anything that will look bad if people ask me what I do with my tax. He does go on Question Time so it's not unreasonable for him to expect to be asked that question. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.