CityCyclingEdinburgh Forum » General Edinburgh

Alternative (High Octane) Fuel Head

(93 posts)
  • Started 13 years ago by Smudge
  • Latest reply from Wilmington's Cow

No tags yet.


1234

  1. Dave
    Member

    I still highly recommend the lens of perspective (it would be even better if public figures tried this before opening their mouths, but hey).

    According to PrejudiceChooser (TM), for a random prejudice, the article reads:

    "The government should consider allowing the police to confiscate the belongings of black men not carrying identification documents, Lord Sugar suggested yesterday. The star of BBC show The Apprentice agreed it was impractical to license black men, but pointed to the example of the United States.

    His comments came as peers called on the government at question time in the House of Lords to take a firmer stance on black men who break the law. "

    Naturally, I'm sure nobody, least of all Lord Sugar would suggest such a thing as the passage above.

    However, prejudice against different groups has a varying level of acceptability (not so long ago in the UK, it would have been just as unacceptable to say this about racial minorities but we were happily persecuting homosexuals, for instance).

    That doesn't mean we can't recognize it for what it is - a "crackdown" on everybody identified by a common label that are not popular with the general public / media... a prejudice. IMO.

    Posted 13 years ago #

  2. Uberuce
    Member

    Devil's Advocacy compells me to point out that cyclists are a self-selecting group. It's intrinsically unfair to harbour prejudice against a group that has no choice but to be part of it, but the behaviour of a self-selecting group is open to rational dislike.

    For example: The government should consider allowing the police to confiscate the belongings of racists not carrying identification documents, Lord Sugar suggested yesterday. The star of BBC show The Apprentice agreed it was impractical to license racists, but pointed to the example of the United States.

    His comments came as peers called on the government at question time in the House of Lords to take a firmer stance on racists who break the law.

    That said, I do find it difficult to construct a rational argument against cyclists in general. RLJ cyclists, pavement cyclists, unlit cyclists, sure, but cyclist full stop is giving me trouble...

    Posted 13 years ago #

  3. chdot
    Admin

    That is a bit bizarre (Dave's version too...)

    No doubt Hansard will tell us the context.

    LS is clearly against lawbreaking. He is actually a bicycle rider - though I suspect he is more likely to be in a Rolls in London, which is where he presumably observes 'lawbreaking' from.

    I also presume that he wouldn't call for cars to be confiscated if the driver isn't in possession of ID - on the spurious basis that the car is IDed.

    I don't think drivers are even obliged to carry their licence with them.

    Posted 13 years ago #

  4. amir
    Member

    Well, it is odd for a person who prides himself on ripping into poor publicity seeking individuals who reveal themselves to be less than practical. LS clearly has not thought through the impracticalities and costs of a cyclist licensing scheme. He should be fired.

    There is also something immoral about ranting on about RLJers but swanning around in gas guzzling cars and private jets. Which will end up in more damage to society?

    Posted 13 years ago #

  5. Dave
    Member

    "Devil's Advocacy compells me to point out that cyclists are a self-selecting group. It's intrinsically unfair to harbour prejudice against a group that has no choice but to be part of it, but the behaviour of a self-selecting group is open to rational dislike. "

    That's true, and yet - religion is self-selecting, to take just the most obvious example. People choose to identify with a religion voluntarily (unlike being born a given ethnicity).

    The rape example is thought provoking but I would suggest that there is a fundamental difference (for instance, if people were trying to crack down on cyclists using firearms to kill gang rivals, rather than simply making life harder for all cyclists, that would be a different matter).

    The government should consider allowing the police to confiscate the belongings of Jews not carrying identification documents, Lord Sugar suggested yesterday. The star of BBC show The Apprentice agreed it was impractical to license Jews, but pointed to the example of the United States.

    His comments came as peers called on the government at question time in the House of Lords to take a firmer stance on Jews who break the law.

    Hmm.

    Posted 13 years ago #

  6. Uberuce
    Member

    Rape example? Racists with a race example, not rapists with a rape example. Not sure if that's a misreading or a typo at your end. No harm done, anyway. Moving back to the debatey parts...

    A person's religion is almost always part of their upbringing, and I doubt many would argue that the child selects the parent. Up to the age where independent thought really gets going, I would argue against describing religion as self selected. I didn't have time to type it earlier, but I was going to include a partial exemption for racists-by-upbringing, a group that did include me to some extent, since I grew up in a rural town in Scotland in the early 80's, and no longer does because it's plainly stupid.

    Where it gets interesting is that, for bigots, religion is an ethnicity.

    I'll use myself as an example. Despite a lifetime of vocal scepticism and a bookshelf of Hitchens, Dawkins and Harris, I suspect the individuals found lining the streets of Orange marches wearing a Rangers strip would simply not accept that I'm not Catholic; I was baptised Catholic and confirmed at age 11, and was made to go to Mass until old enough for my refusal to be accepted.

    Conversely a lot of people without a shred of bigotry in them would refer me as a lapsed Catholic. It's about as accurate as describing a person that's eaten meat every day of their lives and is currently tucking into a bloody steak as a lapsed vegetarian, but there you go.

    I suppose the question would now be: how long does it have to be since you last bestrode a saddle until, in the eyes of Fuel Head et Clarkson et al, before you are no longer a cyclist?

    The reason I'm Devilishly Advocating is because I reckon that it happens at the moment you take your cycling gear off and become a 'proper' pedestrian, or more cynically that this is what they will claim during debates, so that they can claim their prejudice is a self-selected behaviour based one and invalidate your use of the word-swapper.

    Posted 13 years ago #

  7. kaputnik
    Moderator

    If anyone fancies some haulage industry troll baiting on Twitter, read this and then tweet @RHALtd your thoughts about Scottish Director, Phil "a public road with motor vehicles is no place for a cyclist" Flanders.

    It helped me.

    Posted 13 years ago #

  8. crowriver
    Member

    Interesting. He's actually quoting from some Kiwi news article which in turn quotes a corporate lackey from Mercedes-Benz: not exactly a neutral opinion.

    The idiot Flanders is in fact scared of cyclists, as apparently some of them have wee cameras on their helmets and are willing to supply the video to the fuzz, who are it seems taking action against lorry drivers as a result. Ha ha ha!

    Posted 13 years ago #

  9. Smudge
    Member

    rantback tweeted ;-)

    Posted 13 years ago #

  10. Arellcat
    Moderator

    If anyone fancies some haulage industry troll baiting on Twitter, read this...

    Great thundering turnips, what a godawful piece of tripe that was. All Almost all cyclists have indicators: they're called arms. It's obviously our fault that we cyclists are so fast that we kill pedestrians, and it's our fault that we cyclists are so slow that car drivers kill us, on roads which no cyclist ever helped pay for, of course.

    Posted 13 years ago #

  11. Wilmington's Cow
    Member

    I love the licencing idea. I wonder at what age people should be allowed to ride bicycles? 17 like cars? 15? 13? There are going to ,be a lot of disappointed kids suddenly not allowed to ride bikes...

    Posted 13 years ago #

  12. Arellcat
    Moderator

    Does anyone know what sort of car AHOFH drives? I have an awful suspicion, albeit based on circumstantial evidence, that I might actually know.

    Posted 13 years ago #

  13. kaputnik
    Moderator

    I imagine Lancer / Evo / Skyline sort of high-powered, big-enginged nedmobile

    Posted 13 years ago #

  14. Smudge
    Member

    I reckon he wishes he had an Evo but actually has a Ford with a mid sized engine and a large tailpipe...

    Posted 13 years ago #

  15. Smudge
    Member

    Allegedly (iirc) he also has some sort of motorcycle. (Heavens help us :-/ )

    Posted 13 years ago #

  16. kaputnik
    Moderator

    P.S. the Phil Flanders thing is NOT a go at lorrys or lorryists. It's a direct go at an ill-informed, objectionable idiot who is paid to represent the haulage industry and the whose nonsensical rambling demonises the group he is meant to represent.

    Posted 13 years ago #

  17. Smudge
    Member

    Taken as read, seems that was issue 65 and the current one is 68. He (Mr Flanders) appears to be a regular columnist.

    Posted 13 years ago #

  18. Smudge
    Member

    http://www.scotsman.com/the-scotsman/transport/cycle_campaigners_call_for_action_after_road_deaths_rise_1_2026536#

    It appears I am for some reason unable to report post 1 as unsuitable (or indeed downright offensive). :-<

    Posted 13 years ago #

  19. Uberuce
    Member

    It's moderated out of existence now. What was it?

    Posted 13 years ago #

  20. SRD
    Moderator

    s'thing like 'why don't you guys look where you're going'

    Posted 13 years ago #

  21. Smudge
    Member

    "Incandescent" is now posting links to threads on here and quotes from over a month ago so is clearly obsessed enough to be trawling through this site's archives and searching for info on me elsewhere.
    Obviously he has not read the terms and conditions of the EN comments site, (or doesn't care what they are) whose policy is: Links. No metatags hyperlinks or other forms of linkage whatsoever to any other site may be imposed on the website without the prior express written consent of the Publisher!

    Posted 13 years ago #

  22. Uberuce
    Member

    In fairness, 'obsessed' is maybe a bit much. CCE shows up pretty brightly in Google, so you really only need to be mildly irritated with a sprinkling of curiosity.

    The way the 10-string of posts was between 3 and 4am is a bit of a worry, though. No offence, Incandescent, should you be reading.

    Posted 13 years ago #

  23. Smudge
    Member

    @Uberuce, very true, but I thought I'd use one of the words he loves to throw at anyone who dares to challenge his "facts", in full confidence that he will read it.

    Posted 13 years ago #

  24. Kirst
    Member

    The smoking ban has caused childhood asthma, apparently http://www.scotsman.com/news/health/lives_of_pupils_with_asthma_put_at_risk_by_inhaler_rules_1_2049727

    Posted 13 years ago #

  25. cb
    Member

    S/he says:

    " Exposure to tobacco smoke is about the only thing I can think of that has decreased in line with cases of asthma increasing"

    That's the only thing you can think of? The /only/ thing?

    Posted 13 years ago #

  26. Kirst
    Member

    And we all know if he thinks it, it must be true.

    Posted 13 years ago #

  27. Wilmington's Cow
    Member

    Oh good grief... So tobacco smoke toughens up the lungs is it? Like press ups for your breathing?

    Posted 13 years ago #

  28. Kirst
    Member

    Funnily enough, I've had fewer problems with my asthma since the smoking ban.

    Posted 13 years ago #

  29. Wilmington's Cow
    Member

    No Kirst, you're wrong, it's been worse since the smoking ban, Fuel Heid says so.

    I love the comment about kids in his day not suffering from asthma, and that this must mean that kids now are being diagnosed with it just to deal with them, like it's being used as some catch-all for any diagnosis to avoid having to do a proper diagnosis. And it's certainly not that back in his day they weren't as good at spotting it. Like dyslexia.

    Posted 13 years ago #

  30. SRD
    Moderator

    Saw this earlier and considered pointing out that the period in which asthma has increased in pop also coincides with fewer children walking/riding to school and less 'playing out'.

    (More seriously, saw report of study recently which linked rise in childhood asthma to increase in use of Paracetemol rather than aspirin, owing to concerns about Reye's syndrome.)

    Posted 13 years ago #

RSS feed for this topic

1234

Reply »

You must log in to post.


Video embedded using Easy Video Embed plugin