Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
The classic ‘fast moving lights’ type UFOs could be explained, I think, if we imagine that is just what they are – just light – like when you shine a torch in a darkened room – you can move the patch of light very fast or make it change direction very suddenly because the light has no mass or momentum (although the torch in your hand does).
My theory is that possibly two beams of invisible light (UV or infra red or something) can be tuned to emit an interference pattent of visible light where they intersect. If it can be arranged for the light sources (on ground) to move slightly, that could cause the visible patch of light in the sky to move rapidly.
Either people could be doing this deliberately, possibly with relatively unsophisticated equipment or it could be caused accidentally by radar or radio beam crossing. This is just a thought – not sure if this is possible scientifically – I’ll try and read up some more on it.
This is true. Experience obviously gives added weight to a didcussion but if we haven’t experienced something it doesn’t mean that we are not qualified to talk about it. I have never been tortured and I’ve never tortured anyone. Does that mean that I shouldn’t express any views on torture? I am not a muslim – dose that mean I can’t talk about radicalisation of islam?
Speaking without experience is not the same thing as speaking without knowledge. We get people with no depth of knowledege and little grasp of the facts spouting in the media about things like climate change. But you can have informed knowledge without having direct experience. The Bugatti Veyron supercar has forced its way into the minds of petrolheads by having statistical superlatives that are unlikely ever to be exceeded – 250 mph top speed, £800,000 price…. etc. Yet few people will ever drive, or even see one of these cars.
But at some point along the gestation period the baby becomes a third individual in the scenario and in my view it has rights – it’s not that abortion should never happen, but I think that anyone’s right to have a viable child destroyed should be limited to extreme medical circumstances.
They wanted feminism – they got Thatcher
They wanted socialism – they got Blair
They wanted free speech – they got Abu Hamza
They wanted abortion on demand – they got mass abortions of baby girls in Asia.And that flashing Scania icon makes me want to repaint its grille yellow – the re-style didn’t work and needs to be disguised rather than emphasised!
It’s not really a moral question of marraige vs. co-habiting, more a matter of proof of a partnership. If a co-habiting couple split up there can often be dispute about the actual closeness or duration of the partnership. With married couples or gay civil partners, at least it is known that there was an agreed partnership – with that agreed they are then free to squabble over everything else! With co habitees – especially if they are childless – one partner can turn round and say they were never really a partnership anyway.
I forgot to mention my view on mens rights – I did mean to.
A male partner’s view should be considered (to a lesser degree than the woman’s) if he is against aborting their child. However, if he wants the woman to have an abortion against her will, he should have no say whatsoever.
I used to think that abortion was a woman’s absolute right but I have changed my mind. Why? Because an unborn child should have rights too. We don’t have euthanasia, we don’t have capital punishment, we have laws against child abuse yet a viable child can be terminated legally.
I think there is a sliding scale – next-day pill or early stage abortion is OK but as it becomes later it becomes less accepatable. Obviously abortion on medical grounds is acceptable too.
I am not religious – I am a confirmed atheist so my view has come from logical humanist thinking (I think).
The original demand for abortion as a women’s rights issue came from the feminist movement in the late 60’s and early 70’s, so it’s both ironic and sad that one widespread use of abortion now is in Asia (China, India) where parents get rid of baby girls because they’d rather have sons.
I am also upper middle-class but I’m old enough to realise that the working-class complain about everything, the middle-class complain about the working-class and the upper-class complain that they’ve have had to cut back and sell a a few thousand acres to pay for repairs to their country hice.
Oh, not forgetting the over 70’s – they complain about the weather, whatever sort of weather it might be at the time.
We all complain, let’s face it! I mean, only this morning I was walking along minding my own business when…………..LOL
What about those guys who shaved their heads while they were in their teens and early 20’s during the 1990’s only to find, now that hair is ‘in’ again for men, they are nearing 30 and losing the ability to grow hair on top of their heads!
I went the other way during the ‘no hair’ era and grew mine long. I’m only thinking of getting it cut now because it’s sufficiently grey for me to look like an ageing hippie!
What about those guys who shaved their heads while they were in their teens and early 20’s during the 1990’s only to find, now that hair is ‘in’ again for men, they are nearing 30 and going losing the ability to grow hair on top of their heads!
I like cycling, I like walking and I like driving my car. But I agree that these three modes of transport do not mix happily. I don’t cycle on main roads because so many car drivers are careless. When I cycle on the canal towpath the pedestrians get in the way and when I walk on the canal towpath the bikes are a nuisance!
We need more cycle tracks beside main roads so that cyclists don’t have to mix it with the motor traffic.
In towns and cities we need more road space dedicated to cyclists and pedestrians and less space for cars. Not the other way round! The 20th century was the ‘century of the motor car’, like the 19th was the century of steam power. We are not sure what the 21st century will be as it has only just started but it’s unlikely to be another ‘century of the motor car’.
Like I say, I’m not against cars – I’ve always been interested in them, my dad was in the management of a what was at the time an independent car manufacturer and I have worked in the past as a heavy goods driver. I’m just saying that we might have peaked in our love affair with the car. Forget global warming – the oil and other fossil fuels are going to become more scarce and that will make motoring more expensive. Biofuels will only go part of the way to making good the shortfall – the same goes for hybrid cars. We will come to rely more on renewable or nuclear power sources, neither of which can be fitted to vehicles! That means we might all be using battery electric cars in the future. With no imminent breakthrough in battery technology that we know of, these cars will still have limited range and / or slow top speed, but they might be the only dish on the menu!
