BS: DIY Philosophy: Fairness

Subject: RE: BS: DIY Philosophy: Fairness
From: Ed T
Date: 24 Feb 17 - 04:06 PM

Oops, magazine

Subject: RE: BS: DIY Philosophy: Fairness
From: Ed T
Date: 24 Feb 17 - 04:05 PM

Trump free Mad magizine in March

Not that Mad 

Subject: RE: BS: DIY Philosophy: Fairness
From: Donuel
Date: 24 Feb 17 - 03:10 PM

On a quantum level when two states exist simultaneously and it is observed it can be said a wave collapse happens so a specific outcome suddenly exits. I presented this collapse as something that might effect an extremely watched society as a whole in ways I can not explain or even make a guess.
The consensus was the effect would be too small to notice.

"from the flutter of buttery wings to hurricane"

To be fair the consensus made sense to me even though the watching effects us all in some way.

Subject: RE: BS: DIY Philosophy: Fairness
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 24 Feb 17 - 02:58 PM

Heisenberg? Are you certain about that?

Subject: RE: BS: DIY Philosophy: Fairness
From: David Carter (UK)
Date: 24 Feb 17 - 02:11 PM

Whats depressing is that the only thing that most people know about Schrödinger is the cat. Schrödinger's wave equation is the basis of our understanding of all matter, and much besides. One of the greatest figures of the 20th century. Along with Heisenberg, Dirac and of course Einstein.

Subject: RE: BS: DIY Philosophy: Fairness
From: DMcG
Date: 24 Feb 17 - 12:26 PM

We won't get into Schrödinger's Cat but it is more subtle than simply not knowing whether the cat is alive or not: it is a statement about actuality not knowledge. But that's off topic.

So, summarising the thread so far. We seem to be in agreement that "fairness" is not about equality but, for the sake of a word, proportionality. That is, we are content for things to be unequal if there is a suitable justification, such as a relevant skill level. Where that doesn't exist we may end up with fairness matching equality but that is just a consequence of the more general case


But ake used a different concept which is also common, which we might write as fairness=justice. That is, we might regard it as "only fair" to allow someone to speak in a debate even if they are the only person in the world to hold that view.

In case anyone thinks this thread is just an academic exercise, I was listening to the radio yesterday and the politician was talking about revisions to funding in schools because the current system is "unfair". So easy to say, much harder to justify even though the amount per pupil can be quite different.

Subject: RE: BS: DIY Philosophy: Fairness
From: Donuel
Date: 24 Feb 17 - 10:30 AM

Steve I do have a somewhat obvious, polemic and succinct writing style for posts.

Since I was expelled from a public school for writing about evolution and designating man as a mammal among many, it was obvious to me at a very young age that ignorance has a certitude that dwarfs many questions that science has answered.

I do submit posts that are more lengthy than a Jim post, which almost guarantees they will not be read.

The piece I recently wrote 'The Devil and Mr. Obama' was about Donald trying to get out of a contract with the devil and hires Obama as his lawyer.

The next expansive piece will be The Trump Mutiny. It's about Mc Master belaying a Presidential order to go to DefCon-1.

New takes on familiar themes makes for fun surprising twists.

Subject: RE: BS: DIY Philosophy: Fairness
From: punkfolkrocker
Date: 24 Feb 17 - 09:58 AM

Actually.. cats seem to be drawn to me as if by my animal magnetism..

..or perhaps I'm getting so old now, I'm starting to smell of the things cats like the whiff of..???



.. and this is directly related to the thread topic.. How fair is that...!!!???

Subject: RE: BS: DIY Philosophy: Fairness
From: Senoufou
Date: 24 Feb 17 - 09:24 AM

Ha pfr, and I should imagine cats don't like you either! :)

Anyway, a cat shut in a sealed box for an hour would die of asphyxiation. Schrodinger sounds like a horrible pig.

Subject: RE: BS: DIY Philosophy: Fairness
From: punkfolkrocker
Date: 24 Feb 17 - 09:15 AM

Cat in a box... add a steam roller to the equation...


BTW.. I know eff all about the maths and science... I just don't like cats... 😜

Subject: RE: BS: DIY Philosophy: Fairness
From: Vashta Nerada
Date: 24 Feb 17 - 08:48 AM

Since you don't know, either is possible.

Subject: RE: BS: DIY Philosophy: Fairness
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 23 Feb 17 - 10:45 PM

I've never understood Schrödinger's Cat. It seems to me that it's not a question of the cat being both alive and dead until you open the box, just that you don't know whether the cat is desd or alive until you open the box, and then you do.

Subject: RE: BS: DIY Philosophy: Fairness
From: punkfolkrocker
Date: 23 Feb 17 - 10:22 PM

Schrodinger's cat


What if the box has a light bulb and a window... like... errrmmm.. a microwave oven set for 30 mins on High...??? 🙄

Subject: RE: BS: DIY Philosophy: Fairness
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 23 Feb 17 - 09:50 PM

Donuel, be my guest. I was poking around looking for one and the others came along for the ride. We probably ought to throw in Schrodinger's cat while we're at it, eh?

Subject: RE: BS: DIY Philosophy: Fairness
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 23 Feb 17 - 09:37 PM

One problem is, distinguishing between education and indoctrination can be difficult, and there can be wide, and sincere, differences in respect to that.

And there can be situations where it might be justifiable to be strongly committed to a desire to encourage certain values and discourage others.

Subject: RE: BS: DIY Philosophy: Fairness
From: Bill D
Date: 23 Feb 17 - 07:04 PM

Pete said: "There seems to be an assumption that the public needs to be educated so that they will vote the right way. Which way is that ? Why , of course the way that the self appointed guardians of what is right think . And is it unfair that people vote from the gut , and not from the head ?"

Muddled argument Pete...because people DO need as much education as possible on any issue they wish to affect. I say carefully, education not indoctrination. We all are aware... or should be.. that "... self appointed guardians of what is right.." are plentiful on all sides of any issue. The value of good education is to reduce "voting from the gut", because that is often nothing other than operating from prior indoctrination & prejudice. There will be obvious cases where no amount of education can possibly tell us "what is right", and educated people may honestly disagree on both interpretation OF an issue and decisions on how to proceed to solve an issue.
   So... yes it is 'unfair' to vote ONLY "from the gut". If they have educated themselves as reasonably as possible, they may feel very intensely about an issue and vote 'as if' from the gut... after their head has processed the best information in the most rational way.

   Now... if people have what is sometimes called 'enlightened self-interest' about some idea/concept/action, they will often ...ummmm... not bother to DO an educated, rational analysis of the facts... leading to such things as politicians voting for any action which gets them elected or makes money for their party/friends/ constituency.

Education will not solve everything, but good education is a step towards making fewer bad decisions.

Subject: RE: BS: DIY Philosophy: Fairness
From: Donuel
Date: 23 Feb 17 - 06:34 PM

Acme, may I borrow your razors?

They would look good in the Rules of Life.

Subject: RE: BS: DIY Philosophy: Fairness
From: punkfolkrocker
Date: 23 Feb 17 - 03:12 PM

Tonight - Channel 4 - 9.00pm

http://www.channel4.com/programmes/has-political-correctness-gone-mad


"Has Political Correctness Gone Mad?

Has Political Correctness Gone Mad?

About the programme
Trevor Phillips argues that liberalism and a fear of offending minorities are stifling legitimate debate
and have laid the ground for Brexit and the rise of populist leaders like Farage and Trump
"

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/feb/19/trevor-phillips-i-dont-care-about-offending-people-has-political-correctness-gon

Subject: RE: BS: DIY Philosophy: Fairness
From: David Carter (UK)
Date: 23 Feb 17 - 02:51 PM

Just to refresh this thread and point out that Akenaton still hasn't answered the question that I poses on 21st February at 08:44 AM:

Date: 21 Feb 17 - 08:44 AM

Ake, if you reject the "universal equality agenda", please tell us which inequalities you support.

Subject: RE: BS: DIY Philosophy: Fairness
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 22 Feb 17 - 06:51 PM

Many of these apply to the discussion here:

Occam's razor: When faced with competing hypotheses, select the one that makes the fewest assumptions. Do not multiply entities without necessity.

Grice's razor: As a principle of parsimony, conversational implications are to be preferred over semantic context for linguistic explanations.

Hanlon's razor: Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity.

Hume's razor: "If the cause, assigned for any effect, be not sufficient to produce it, we must either reject that cause, or add to it such qualities as will give it a just proportion to the effect."

Hitchens's razor: "What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence."

Alder's razor: If something cannot be settled by experiment or observation then it is not worthy of debate.

Popper's falsifiability principle: For a theory to be considered scientific, it must be falsifiable.

An extraordinary claim requires extraordinary proof. --Marcello Truzzi (who popularized the term pseudoskepticism in response to skeptics who, in his opinion, made negative claims without bearing the burden of proof of those claims.)

If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it probably is a duck. --James Whitcomb Riley

Subject: RE: BS: DIY Philosophy: Fairness
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 22 Feb 17 - 08:17 AM

Over time evidence can accumulate which changes the nature of a controversy. For example, in the time of Galileo there was still room for a genuine disagreement as to whether the Earth went round the sun or the other way round, which was why he got in trouble on the grounds he was presenting the former as proved beyond doubt.

Further evidence has accumulated, and explanations for the anomalies that appeared to throw doubt on the heliocentric case, and it would no longer to possible to claim the older theory as deserving any space in a discussion.

In the same way I would suggest that it is now impossible rationally to deny the factual nature of climate change, and the argument has shifted to the degree to which human activity contributes to it, and the question as to whether anything we can do can and should be dne to reduce harmful consequences and counter the process.

Subject: RE: BS: DIY Philosophy: Fairness
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 22 Feb 17 - 03:37 AM

Cheers, Donuel.

"Ignorance has a certitude that dwarfs the questions science has answered."

I'll hang on to that for future use unless you tell me you have the copyright.

Subject: RE: BS: DIY Philosophy: Fairness
From: David Carter (UK)
Date: 22 Feb 17 - 03:06 AM

Scientists are not self-appointed, they are all responsible to and appointed by either a Higher Education Institution of a Government department. Or a private sector company, though not many in my field. And they do, in their research papers if you read them, clearly set out their methodology and explain why they have reached the conclusions they have from the data they have.

Subject: RE: BS: DIY Philosophy: Fairness
From: Donuel
Date: 21 Feb 17 - 09:36 PM

Trump believes he knows where to draw the line Steve.

Ignorance has a certitude that dwarfs the questions science has answered.

Tune out and take over techniques are the new rule of law to control the mind, money and meaning of all our established truths.

Reagan was our Teflon President. Non stick scandal proof

Trump is our Slime President. Slick as shit.

Subject: RE: BS: DIY Philosophy: Fairness
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 21 Feb 17 - 08:52 PM

A slight correction, Kevin. It's "comment is free, but facts are sacred." As for proved beyond doubt, that would exclude all the notions delivered by science. "Demonstrated beyond reasonable doubt" might be a better way of putting it, or "supported by an overwhelming body of evidence." Thinking here of climate change brought about by human activity. The evidence is terrific but there remains the ever so slight possibility that what we are witnessing could have happened without human input. To build that vanishingly small likelihood into a kind of counter-science is unconscionable, rather like saying that humans can never pass through the Van Allen belts when they demonstrably have done many times (that's one of my dad's hobby horses). Patiently arguing with such people is nearly always a waste of time and their claims to equal exposure are vexatious and, if indulged, ultimately energy-sapping and militating against proper understanding. Ask me how much oxygen they should get, and where to draw the line between genuinely misguided people and charlatans with an agenda, and I haven't a clue. Ideally, they should sharpen the quest for the real truth. In practice, they don't half get in the way sometimes. Tough.

And you know what I think of religion.

Subject: RE: BS: DIY Philosophy: Fairness
From: Donuel
Date: 21 Feb 17 - 08:46 PM

Good Post McGrath

Kids, take note.

Subject: RE: BS: DIY Philosophy: Fairness
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 21 Feb 17 - 08:27 PM

The editor CP Scott famously said, in regard to his paper, The Manchester Guardian, "Opinions are free, but facts are sacred", and I think that is the key principle in any discussion that sets out to be fair.

Of course the complication is that opinions about what are the facts can differ - but in most cases it is possible to establish them objectively. A fair discussion of the different opinions people hold about what is the right thing to do can then proceed.

A commitment to fairness does not imply any duty to include those who refuse to accept facts which have been objectively proved beyond doubt. So much for flat-earthers and holocaust deniers.

But of course it is important not to stretch the category of "proved beyond doubt" to include things about which many, even most, are confident is true.
..........
The suggestion that "liberal" views are so established that other voices are silenced does not stand up to the briefest examination of the tabloid press in the UK. The BBC does have a legal obligation to be fair, which it sometimes seeks to meet in ways that are not wholly satisfactory, but the press has no such obligation, and in the case of most national newspapers, no desire to act in accordance with CP Scott's words which I quoted above.

Subject: RE: BS: DIY Philosophy: Fairness
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 21 Feb 17 - 07:30 PM

Incidentally, Pete, Churchill also said that the best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter.

Subject: RE: BS: DIY Philosophy: Fairness
From: Donuel
Date: 21 Feb 17 - 07:22 PM

SEEMS TO BE? Jaysuss Its in the fricken Constitution!

Do something intelligent and read it.

Subject: RE: BS: DIY Philosophy: Fairness
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 21 Feb 17 - 06:08 PM

And it would be a very good idea if you refrained from attacking science. You have better things to do.

Subject: RE: BS: DIY Philosophy: Fairness
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 21 Feb 17 - 06:05 PM

"Rosy?"

Education does not mean indoctrination. It means instilling curiosity and enthusiasm for learning. It means promoting critical thinking, healthy scepticism and demanding evidence for assertions that may be unsupported. The kneejerk reaction from the right on hearing suggestions that education in politics would be a good thing Is to accuse the proponents of wanting to start the next socialist revolution. That's just total rubbish. All parts of the political spectrum should be involved and they should all painstakingly adhere to the principles of real education. If you want to know how not to do it, just look at religious so-called education, which is actually nothing of the sort. The absence of politics education means a politically-illiterate electorate vulnerable to simplistic populism and downright lies, as we have just seen in the UK and US. I can't think of anything more undemocratic.

Subject: RE: BS: DIY Philosophy: Fairness
From: punkfolkrocker
Date: 21 Feb 17 - 06:02 PM

"There seems to be an assumption that the public needs to be educated so that they will vote the right way. Which way is that ?
Why , of course the way that the self appointed guardians of what is right think"

You seem to be a bit confused by a simplistic choice of 'good or bad' brainwashing....????


People need to be educated so they can vote in an intelligent way....

.. to be sufficiently objectively informed to be able to decide for themselves what they consider to be the 'right' way... 😣

Subject: RE: BS: DIY Philosophy: Fairness
From: Pete from seven stars link
Date: 21 Feb 17 - 05:43 PM

Similarly with science . Do the self appointed really want people deciding for themselves ., being told what to believe without showing why it's true . Of course , if fairness means the majority view it don't matter !

Subject: RE: BS: DIY Philosophy: Fairness
From: Pete from seven stars link
Date: 21 Feb 17 - 05:38 PM

There seems to be an assumption that the public needs to be educated so that they will vote the right way. Which way is that ? Why , of course the way that the self appointed guardians of what is right think . And is it unfair that people vote from the gut , and not from the head ? . And who's to say that those who claim to be voting from a firm grasp of the information are not really also voting from the gut. Was it Churchill who said that democracy was the rosy form of govt apart from all the rest ?

Subject: RE: BS: DIY Philosophy: Fairness
From: Donuel
Date: 21 Feb 17 - 11:37 AM

Under the Reagan administration, the FCC killed the Fairness Doctrine (in 1987), doing away with a policy — put in place in 1949 — that required broadcasters to cover controversial issues of public importance and offer contrasting viewpoints on those issues.

We now have an unofficial freedom to lie or make good TV by screaming at each other.

Subject: RE: BS: DIY Philosophy: Fairness
From: Senoufou
Date: 21 Feb 17 - 09:28 AM

That situation (sacrificing the least useful members to save the more useful ones) is perhaps Utilitarian or even Machiavellian. One could argue in a rather cold-blooded way that the end result would be for the best, and would justify the means.
We had endless discussions along these lines in Moral Philosophy, usually involving whom one would chuck out of a hot air balloon or a life raft in the Pacific Ocean. It makes me think that, in addition to 'fair' and 'reasonable' there is 'humane' or even 'kind', principles that are much harder to define or to practise. One can't act on mere emotional promptings alone, and it can be dangerous to follow one's 'conscience' or 'heart. I'm sure Hitler himself thought he was doing the best for Germany. And look at those dreadful exorcisms of child witches that take place in, say, Nigeria even today. Presumably the protagonists think it's 'all for the best'

Philosophy is a forest full of briars and unseen traps in the undergrowth! Finding a path through is never easy...

Subject: RE: BS: DIY Philosophy: Fairness
From: Ed T
Date: 21 Feb 17 - 09:07 AM

"I've always felt that the legal term 'reasonable' is open to interpretation by the person doing the judging"

Yes, that is a good point. However, it does give flexibility in an assessment in differing situations. What is defined as "fair" in one point in time, in a multitude of situations, or in differing cultures could vary significantly and could be very subjective.

Years ago, I heard of situations (accurate, or not) where families in the extreme north were faced with starvation with the lack of food. Cultural norms were to sacrifice the weakest family members firs, the old a t young. This seemed reaonable, based on survival logic in that culture. However, in our culture this approachb may not seem to be fair - women and children tend to be seen as more important when it comes to survival strategies (additionally, it may also seem unfair to those being sacrificed).

Subject: RE: BS: DIY Philosophy: Fairness
From: David Carter (UK)
Date: 21 Feb 17 - 08:44 AM

Ake, if you reject the "universal equality agenda", please tell us which inequalities you support.

Subject: RE: BS: DIY Philosophy: Fairness
From: akenaton
Date: 21 Feb 17 - 07:10 AM

These people are no madder or more stupid than those who's universal equality agenda has been so firmly rejected.

Subject: RE: BS: DIY Philosophy: Fairness
From: David Carter (UK)
Date: 21 Feb 17 - 03:34 AM

Ebbie, the BBC is in my view too keen to present contrary viewpoints on scientific topics on which their editors should know better. Contrary viewpoints which have been extensively debated in academic circles and found to be groundless. Climate change is indeed an example, its hardly possible to turn on a segment on climate change without having a "balancing" viewpoint from someone like Benny Peiser, who is a social scientist not an atmospheric scientist, or Nigel Lawson who is not a scientist at all. On archeology without a contribution from Graham Hancock or someone similar. Whenever there is a comet in the sky such as Halley's comet in 1986 there always has to be a segment featuring someone saying it fortells doom, ranging from those with some scientific credibility talking about impacts, to the bizarre cults claiming that the righteous will be transported away in the comet which is really a spaceship. These people do not have any credibility and they do not merit equal time. No wonder the public are confused, as Stu says they are by and large not thick, but they are presented with a vast array of contradictory information without having the background and information to filter out the total nonsense from areas of genuine debate.

I used to think that it was the equivalent of having genuine debates on politics interleaved with segments from some Walter Mitty character who claims to know all the answers from another life. And lo and behold, along comes Paul Nuttall, and look where that has got us.

Subject: RE: BS: DIY Philosophy: Fairness
From: akenaton
Date: 21 Feb 17 - 02:44 AM

My post wasn't really about President Trump, it was regarding fairness. Something which Will forgot to mention

Subject: RE: BS: DIY Philosophy: Fairness
From: punkfolkrocker
Date: 20 Feb 17 - 06:04 PM

These days it seems Mudcat is just one thread after another about Trump.. or obits... ???

is that fair...????? 🙄

Subject: RE: BS: DIY Philosophy: Fairness
From: Will Fly
Date: 20 Feb 17 - 06:03 PM

Yes, you're quite right - the man's name got mentioned and off we went. Irritation gets the better of us sometimes. Shan't talk about the man again in this thread - promise.

Subject: RE: BS: DIY Philosophy: Fairness
From: DMcG
Date: 20 Feb 17 - 05:18 PM

Oh dear, I may have been wrong in my last post: aren't there enough Trump threads already?

Subject: RE: BS: DIY Philosophy: Fairness
From: Will Fly
Date: 20 Feb 17 - 05:05 PM

From a recent issue of the New York Times:

'Within hours of Trump's swearing-in, the White House website was scrubbed of any reference to LGBT rights, climate change, and promotion of democratic values. U.S. participation in many international organizations and treaties is currently under review.

Trump appears more invested in protecting the United States' interests than in exporting its values.

Trump's foreign affairs team is also shaping up as one of the most hostile to gay rights in recent history. Vice President Mike Pence gained national notoriety when, as governor of Indiana, he signed the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, a law that permits discrimination against LGBT people so as not to violate "sincerely held religious views." As an Indiana congressman, Pence voted against every pro-gay measure introduced in the House of Representatives, including a bill to ban anti-gay discrimination in housing and employment and another to facilitate prosecuting anti-gay hate crimes. In 2009, Pence proposed an amendment to a foreign appropriations bill that called for the removal of all references to homosexuality, noting that "in embracing the advocacy of changes in laws regarding homosexuality around the world, this legislation advocates a set of values that are at odds with the majority of the American people."'

Just saying...

Subject: RE: BS: DIY Philosophy: Fairness
From: akenaton
Date: 20 Feb 17 - 04:41 PM

"
If someone actually argued this: ...you all seem to dislike president Trump because you think he is against homosexuals......but you really love Saudi Arabia who kill them out of hand!! they presented a pair of premises which are likely both inaccurate and/or incomplete. It is NOT likely that many views are so simplistic. Being against Trump would likely have many components, and it is unlikely that anyone 'loves' Saudi Arabia no matter how LGBT people are treated there. Sort of a false dichotomy."


The discussion I referred to was over whether President Trump should be accorded a State visit and a meeting with the Queen.
The panel without offering any evidence suggested that the US president was a homophobic racist. there are large demonstrations at the moment in London in favour of this position.
I have heard nothing against homosexuals from President Trump and his "racism" seems to allude to his anti terrorist travel ban. As far as I know the seven countries which involve a terrorist threat were first mooted by President Obama with no word of dissent.
All citizens of these countries of any religion were subject to the temporary travel ban , until a proper policy could be worked out.

The leader of China was allowed a state visit, as was the Leader of Saudi Arabia who also met Queen Elizabeth.

The human rights record of these two characters is many times worse than that apportioned to President Trump yet he may be refused a State visit, a meeting with the Queen and the opportunity to address the UK parliament..............not fair and all because of the wounded pride of the "liberal" elite, media, and parliamentary rump.

Subject: RE: BS: DIY Philosophy: Fairness
From: DMcG
Date: 20 Feb 17 - 11:52 AM

I was thinking last night, while at dinner with relatives, that I might give a little push to the thread onto another somewhat different interpretation of 'fair', but given how splendidly this is coming along I will just let things continue on their current course. My thanks to all for proving the fears I expressed in the opening post were completely unfounded :)

Subject: RE: BS: DIY Philosophy: Fairness
From: Stu
Date: 20 Feb 17 - 09:13 AM

"The trouble with scientific subjects is that a vast majority of the public haven't had the advanced education or scientific background which would enable them to understand the issues"

This is a key point, and one that scientists need to engage with. One thing I would say is I don;t think the public is as thick as people think, and are more than capable of understanding complex concepts if they are presented in an understandable way; the appetite for science documentaries such as those presented by Brian Cox show folk can cope with complexity and nuance.

But... the information must be communicated clearly and structured in such a way it's digestible.

Subject: RE: BS: DIY Philosophy: Fairness
From: Will Fly
Date: 20 Feb 17 - 08:59 AM

Eliza, as far as the Brexit vote went, I would go even further than you and say that very few people knew enough about the economic, political, social and cultural complexities of the LEAVE/REMAIN proposals to make anything like a properly informed choice.

If there are no facts on which a reasonably (I like the word "reasonable" as well, Ed T) fair discussion and outcome can be based, then the public votes with its gut reaction and its prejudices, based on half-truths and some lies - one way or the other. All very silly.

We vote MPs into Parliament. We then ask them to form a properly elected government whose sole task to make important decisions on how the country should work, decisions for which the government can enlist the advice and experience of skilled professionals in various areas.

Then we renounce all that and rely on gut reactions, half-truths and lies. It's a very stupid way to run a country - and I say this regardless of the outcome.

As for the BBC - for whom I worked many years ago - you can be sure that whichever government is in power will inevitably accuse the BBC of bias if government policies and actions are queried. It happened in my time - under both Labour and Tory governments. The BBC has a very difficult job in maintaining equal-handedness and, unfortunately, doesn't always manage it well.

Subject: RE: BS: DIY Philosophy: Fairness
From: Senoufou
Date: 20 Feb 17 - 08:57 AM

I've always felt that the legal term 'reasonable' is open to interpretation by the person doing the judging. For instance, is it 'reasonable' to smack a naughty child? (Or unacceptable nowadays?) What constitutes a 'reasonable' amount of noise from a neighbour? Is it 'reasonable' to expect goods to be delivered within a certain number of days? It depends on who is deciding doesn't it? None of it is self-evident.

Sometimes on this site I've felt people are being unreasonably angry and aggressive, but it could just be that I'm rather old and used to different manners which pertained in the past. But is it fair that those who are more dominant and assertive 'win' the argument?

I do like the word equality. And everyone having equal rights. But one could say 'yet some are more equal than others'. It's all very difficult!