11-03-2005, 06:03 PM
11-03-2005, 06:05 PM
maczippy @ Mon 24 Oct, 2005 2:31 am Wrote:
monster @ Sun 23 Oct, 2005 Wrote:
wendl @ Sun 23 Oct, 2005 8:28 pm Wrote:
I did bring some Lancashire cheese back with me in July this year.
Cheese is OK as long as it's sealed.
Not anymore...(and frankly no need as you can get most Brit cheeses here anyways)
Cheese is on the list too...Smuggle it in and get busted...Not worth it.
Andrew
Where is your information from? When did it change? My leaflet says it's fine as long as it's sealed and not soft unripened. My MIL regularly brings Blue stilton, always declares it and has never had a problem. And no, we can't all get British cheese, but the fact that you can surely means it's still OK to import as long as you do it properly?
11-03-2005, 07:09 PM
/aside
looks like a few people have failed to progress beyond Kohlberg's stage 2 ;)
Kohlberg used moral dilemmas to determine which stage of moral reasoning a person uses. The dilemmas are short stories in which a person has to make a moral decision. The participant is asked what this person should do. A dilemma that Kohlberg used in his original research was the druggist's dilemma:
A woman was near death from a unique kind of cancer. There is a drug that might save her. The drug costs $4,000 per dosage. The sick woman's husband, Heinz, went to everyone he knew to borrow the money and tried every legal means, but he could only get together about $2,000. He asked the doctor scientist who discovered the drug for a discount or let him pay later. But the doctor scientist refused.
Should Heinz break into the laboratory to steal the drug for his wife? Why or why not?
From a theoretical point of view, it is not important what the participant thinks that Heinz should do. The point of interest is the justification that the participant offers. Below are examples of possible arguments that belong to the six stages. It is important to keep in mind that these arguments are only examples. It is possible that a participant reaches a completely different conclusion using the same stage of reasoning:
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Stage one (obedience): Heinz should not steal the medicine, because he will consequently be put in prison.
Stage two (self-interest): Heinz should steal the medicine, because he will be much happier if he saves his wife, even if he will have to serve a prison sentence.
Stage three (conformity): Heinz should steal the medicine, because his wife expects it.
Stage four (law-and-order): Heinz should not steal the medicine, because the law prohibits stealing.
Stage five (human rights): Heinz should steal the medicine, because everyone has a right to live, regardless of the law. Or: Heinz should not steal the medicine, because the scientist has a right to fair compensation.
Stage six (universal human ethics): Heinz should steal the medicine, because saving a human life is a more fundamental value than the property rights of another person. Or: Heinz should not steal the medicine, because that violates the golden rule of honesty and respect.
Stage seven (transcendental morality): Heinz should choose to spend more time with his wife in their remaining days, both acknowledging the cycle of life-and-death which is a part of the human condition.
This particular version taken from Wikpedia
:lol:
looks like a few people have failed to progress beyond Kohlberg's stage 2 ;)
Kohlberg used moral dilemmas to determine which stage of moral reasoning a person uses. The dilemmas are short stories in which a person has to make a moral decision. The participant is asked what this person should do. A dilemma that Kohlberg used in his original research was the druggist's dilemma:
A woman was near death from a unique kind of cancer. There is a drug that might save her. The drug costs $4,000 per dosage. The sick woman's husband, Heinz, went to everyone he knew to borrow the money and tried every legal means, but he could only get together about $2,000. He asked the doctor scientist who discovered the drug for a discount or let him pay later. But the doctor scientist refused.
Should Heinz break into the laboratory to steal the drug for his wife? Why or why not?
From a theoretical point of view, it is not important what the participant thinks that Heinz should do. The point of interest is the justification that the participant offers. Below are examples of possible arguments that belong to the six stages. It is important to keep in mind that these arguments are only examples. It is possible that a participant reaches a completely different conclusion using the same stage of reasoning:
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Stage one (obedience): Heinz should not steal the medicine, because he will consequently be put in prison.
Stage two (self-interest): Heinz should steal the medicine, because he will be much happier if he saves his wife, even if he will have to serve a prison sentence.
Stage three (conformity): Heinz should steal the medicine, because his wife expects it.
Stage four (law-and-order): Heinz should not steal the medicine, because the law prohibits stealing.
Stage five (human rights): Heinz should steal the medicine, because everyone has a right to live, regardless of the law. Or: Heinz should not steal the medicine, because the scientist has a right to fair compensation.
Stage six (universal human ethics): Heinz should steal the medicine, because saving a human life is a more fundamental value than the property rights of another person. Or: Heinz should not steal the medicine, because that violates the golden rule of honesty and respect.
Stage seven (transcendental morality): Heinz should choose to spend more time with his wife in their remaining days, both acknowledging the cycle of life-and-death which is a part of the human condition.
This particular version taken from Wikpedia
:lol:
11-04-2005, 10:22 AM
monster @ Thu 03 Nov, 2005 Wrote:
midgeure @ Mon 24 Oct, 2005 1:19 pm Wrote:
[quote="monster @ Sun 23 Oct, 2005"]Over-zealous it may be, but the law is there for a reasonquote]
Its a law that shouldn't be there though as theres no reason for it!
If they are trying to argue there is a BSE reason then that is ludicrously out of date. There is more BSE in the States than there ever was in Britain and UK meat has been safe for years.
Its a law that shouldn't be there though as theres no reason for it!
If they are trying to argue there is a BSE reason then that is ludicrously out of date. There is more BSE in the States than there ever was in Britain and UK meat has been safe for years.
As I said it may be over-zealous, but there is a reason. Just because you think it's stupid, doesn't mean you're right to ignore it or break it. Many people (especially those under the influence of alcohol) think the drink-drive laws are stupid. Some people think the underage sex laws are stupid. Would you be happy for them to ignore tham? Get the drift?.... :roll:
.....and the mirror is not a reputable source of factual scientific information. :roll: :roll:
You are not a robot Mr Monster...in America the government has something called 'Checks and Balances' ever heard of it? That means they are only human and can pass stupid rules and laws and we as a people can stand up to those...
well, why wouldnt Mr Monster like to be a part of that, rather than be like a sheep and follow every rule, law etc the government puts in place. I dont mean break them!!! :roll: I mean be a part of the checks and balances..its a democracy we live in! not a dictatorship, maybe Mr Monster would like that and could move to Cuba :razz: (ohh that would be nice)
11-04-2005, 11:46 AM
Midge,
What if everyone thought as you appear to do. If we all decided to ignore any laws that we thought restricted us from doing anything we like, we would have anarchy. I go confidently about my daily routines, in the knowledge that I can reasonably forcast the behaviour of all or most of my companions on this earth. If they were all of your mind, that laws only applied if you want them to, my life would become horribly stressful from the lack of security.
We have people who clearly believe it is ok to drive while stoned.
We have men who have an organisation supporting man/boy sexual relationships, they think the pedophilia laws are wrong.
We have people who believe it is ok for men to have many wives, and wives as young as 13 years of age.
Tell me where we must draw the line. Are these people as entitled as you to decide on which laws to obey?
I want to be able to rely on people to obey the law so that I know the boundaries. If you don't like law, start campaigning to get it changed, but obey it in the mean time.
p.s. You didn't respond to my previous question on the European bans on Genetically Modified food are ridiculous.
What if everyone thought as you appear to do. If we all decided to ignore any laws that we thought restricted us from doing anything we like, we would have anarchy. I go confidently about my daily routines, in the knowledge that I can reasonably forcast the behaviour of all or most of my companions on this earth. If they were all of your mind, that laws only applied if you want them to, my life would become horribly stressful from the lack of security.
We have people who clearly believe it is ok to drive while stoned.
We have men who have an organisation supporting man/boy sexual relationships, they think the pedophilia laws are wrong.
We have people who believe it is ok for men to have many wives, and wives as young as 13 years of age.
Tell me where we must draw the line. Are these people as entitled as you to decide on which laws to obey?
I want to be able to rely on people to obey the law so that I know the boundaries. If you don't like law, start campaigning to get it changed, but obey it in the mean time.
p.s. You didn't respond to my previous question on the European bans on Genetically Modified food are ridiculous.
11-04-2005, 01:54 PM
midgeure @ Fri 04 Nov, 2005 Wrote:
monster @ Thu 03 Nov, 2005 Wrote:
midgeure @ Mon 24 Oct, 2005 1:19 pm Wrote:
[quote="monster @ Sun 23 Oct, 2005"]Over-zealous it may be, but the law is there for a reasonquote]
Its a law that shouldn't be there though as theres no reason for it!
If they are trying to argue there is a BSE reason then that is ludicrously out of date. There is more BSE in the States than there ever was in Britain and UK meat has been safe for years.
Its a law that shouldn't be there though as theres no reason for it!
If they are trying to argue there is a BSE reason then that is ludicrously out of date. There is more BSE in the States than there ever was in Britain and UK meat has been safe for years.
As I said it may be over-zealous, but there is a reason. Just because you think it's stupid, doesn't mean you're right to ignore it or break it. Many people (especially those under the influence of alcohol) think the drink-drive laws are stupid. Some people think the underage sex laws are stupid. Would you be happy for them to ignore tham? Get the drift?.... :roll:
.....and the mirror is not a reputable source of factual scientific information. :roll: :roll:
You are not a robot Mr Monster...in America the government has something called 'Checks and Balances' ever heard of it? That means they are only human and can pass stupid rules and laws and we as a people can stand up to those...
well, why wouldnt Mr Monster like to be a part of that, rather than be like a sheep and follow every rule, law etc the government puts in place. I dont mean break them!!! :roll: I mean be a part of the checks and balances..its a democracy we live in! not a dictatorship, maybe Mr Monster would like that and could move to Cuba :razz: (ohh that would be nice)
Sorry to "speak" strongly, but good lord, what a ridiculous argument for ignoring the law.
Checks and balances has absolutely NOTHING to do with flouting laws that are in place. Rather, it refers to how the Constitution set the government up, with each of the three branches limiting the power of the other. i.e. a bill is drawn up and is passed in congress, the president can veto it if he doesn't care for it, with enough votes Congress can override the veto, if the bill is passed, if someone doesn't care for the law, they can sue and the judicial system can interpret the legality of it.
If you don't like a law, as previously mentioned, you have the opportunity to contact your congress person and ask them to do something about it (which I am sure that they will happily ignore) or sue.
Oh, and I believe from hanging around here for some time it is Dr. Monster.
11-04-2005, 07:17 PM
Well it certainly isn't Mr Monster! :lol:
Midge, you have been advocating breaking the law because it is stupid, and now you talk about "checks and balances" and say that you don't mean breaking the law? You have no idea what you are actually talking about, do you? Utterly inconsistent. Do explain these "checks and balances" for us political ignorami, please. Or did you just pick it up off a Republican Brochure? And would you care to explain your Cuban reference? How does it follow that someone who generally follows the law would like to live under a Cuban Dictatorship? You know nothing about me, yet you know where I should live? (You who don't even seem to know where you should live :roll:)
Did I ever say there weren't stupid laws? Did I ever say I blindly followed all laws? No? Then I fail to see your evidence for calling me a sheep. Did you actually read and understand what I wrote or just did you understand that what I wrote made you look bad, and lashed out?
Sure, there are laws that need changing -many of them in my opinion. Breaking these laws is rarely the best way to go about it (although Rosa Parks gave a fine example of an exception to this rule). The more people insist on trying to smuggle food in, the tighter and sillier the rules will become. The law may be wrong, but that doesn't make it right to break it. Lobbying politicians, conducting and publishing research, voting those in power out, encouraging reciprocal trade bans etc. are some of the weapons you need to use. Although the cynic in me might suggest that finding a way to sell British food to Iraqis at an enormous profit might be a faster way to get the government to "see the light" about the "safety" of these foods. 8)
And as for the "reason" behind the food laws, BSE is just one of them. There are fruit and soil pests that could devastate American crops if they were introduced here, for example -the food may be fine, but it's "baggage" just isn't worth it. Think about the damage caused by so many accidentally and deliberately "introduced" species and diseases. Would you really support people smuggling animals into the UK from countries with Rabies? Yet some people in countries where there is rabies (like America) think the ban is stupid, don't understand it and regularly try to break it. Do they have your blessing?
Midge, you have been advocating breaking the law because it is stupid, and now you talk about "checks and balances" and say that you don't mean breaking the law? You have no idea what you are actually talking about, do you? Utterly inconsistent. Do explain these "checks and balances" for us political ignorami, please. Or did you just pick it up off a Republican Brochure? And would you care to explain your Cuban reference? How does it follow that someone who generally follows the law would like to live under a Cuban Dictatorship? You know nothing about me, yet you know where I should live? (You who don't even seem to know where you should live :roll:)
Did I ever say there weren't stupid laws? Did I ever say I blindly followed all laws? No? Then I fail to see your evidence for calling me a sheep. Did you actually read and understand what I wrote or just did you understand that what I wrote made you look bad, and lashed out?
Sure, there are laws that need changing -many of them in my opinion. Breaking these laws is rarely the best way to go about it (although Rosa Parks gave a fine example of an exception to this rule). The more people insist on trying to smuggle food in, the tighter and sillier the rules will become. The law may be wrong, but that doesn't make it right to break it. Lobbying politicians, conducting and publishing research, voting those in power out, encouraging reciprocal trade bans etc. are some of the weapons you need to use. Although the cynic in me might suggest that finding a way to sell British food to Iraqis at an enormous profit might be a faster way to get the government to "see the light" about the "safety" of these foods. 8)
And as for the "reason" behind the food laws, BSE is just one of them. There are fruit and soil pests that could devastate American crops if they were introduced here, for example -the food may be fine, but it's "baggage" just isn't worth it. Think about the damage caused by so many accidentally and deliberately "introduced" species and diseases. Would you really support people smuggling animals into the UK from countries with Rabies? Yet some people in countries where there is rabies (like America) think the ban is stupid, don't understand it and regularly try to break it. Do they have your blessing?
11-05-2005, 09:37 PM
I live on a completely Pot Noodle diet. Never did me any harm.
11-05-2005, 10:11 PM
Ignorami? That's a type of sausage isn't it Mr Monster? shock
11-05-2005, 10:17 PM
mrbungle2103 @ Sat 05 Nov, 2005 11:11 pm Wrote:
Ignorami? That's a type of sausage isn't it Mr Monster? :shock:
Ah yes, but "political ignorami" is a form of paper art, Mme Bunghole. It involves replacing the dna in the brain cells with stacks and chains of miniature cranes made from folded paper of various colours.
11-05-2005, 10:21 PM
I've heard that the next set of food import legislation will be so tough that those in the know are already calling the USA's borders the Beef Curtains. 8)
11-06-2005, 12:11 PM
For those of you who said I was saying we should break the law..you obviously can't read!!!!
I never said that!!!! You can read into it what you wish...ohhh soooo sad..bunch of Stuck up Prudes
I never said that!!!! You can read into it what you wish...ohhh soooo sad..bunch of Stuck up Prudes
11-06-2005, 12:34 PM
midgeure @ Sun 06 Nov, 2005 1:11 pm Wrote:
...ohhh soooo sad..bunch of Stuck up Prudes
:lol:
11-06-2005, 12:56 PM
monster @ Sun 06 Nov, 2005 Wrote:
midgeure @ Sun 06 Nov, 2005 1:11 pm Wrote:
...ohhh soooo sad..bunch of Stuck up Prudes
:lol:
:roll:
11-08-2005, 10:42 PM
monster @ Sat 05 Nov, 2005 7:17 pm Wrote:
It involves replacing the dna in the brain cells with stacks and chains of miniature cranes made from folded paper of various colours.
I think I had that done so I could appreciate Murrikan tv.