Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
@cas wrote:
@Mr Bigstuff wrote:
I disagree, unhealthy food is often cheaper than healthy food. You could probably get a burger from McDonalds for 70p while lean, minced beef would cost you a lot more. Likewise, a can of fizzy drink and a packet of crisps will cost a lot less than a bottle of pure fruit juice and a packet of unsalted nuts. Basically, the healthier you want to eat, the more it will cost you.
Rubbish :roll:
It’s obvious to me that unhealthy processed food is cheaper than quality, healthy food. If you go to any low-cost supermarket you will see for example that their own store-brand fish fingers will be a lot cheaper than buying fresh fish. Also, their store-brand chicken nuggets will be cheaper than fresh, lean, poultry meat. It’s far cheaper to eat crap food than to eat healthy food. I remember going to supermarkets where you could buy a can of baked beans for 9p and a loaf of bread for 20p. What healthy snack can you buy for 29p?
I disagree, unhealthy food is often cheaper than healthy food. You could probably get a burger from McDonalds for 70p while lean, minced beef would cost you a lot more. Likewise, a can of fizzy drink and a packet of crisps will cost a lot less than a bottle of pure fruit juice and a packet of unsalted nuts. Basically, the healthier you want to eat, the more it will cost you.
Well since I haven’t read the article, I don’t really know what you’re talking about but I don’t know of any council that thinks up a new housing policy, implements it and reaps results all in the space of 14 days. I don’t know about your council but I know my council doesn’t get things done with lightning speed.
The link is dead, probably because the council discovered the lies the BNP were telling about their housing policy. How an opposition party can take credit for a policy the ruling party implemented is beyond me. Talk about clutching at straws.
Well I’m in favour of the general idea of getting the country fitter and healthier. We should be encouraging people to eat healthier food and do more physical activity. In the long-term it’s better for them.
@emmalush wrote:
@Mr Bigstuff wrote:
Racial classifications are man-made so obviously believing in racial characteristics, ability, policy, etc. is something that is learnt not something that is instinctive. There is also no scientific basis to say that different racial groups have different abilities except for a few specific biological exceptions e.g. dark skinned people are naturally protected from the sun while paler-skinned people aren’t.
Mr, your confusing skin colour with this thread. Forget skin colour for a bit ok. DEAL with what else is also race, “a group of people with a common feature”.
Does a group of people working at a bank, have different abilities to stamp collectors who have NEVER worked at a bank, and dont know what banking is about? Of course, so scientifically, differing racial gropus do have differing ability.
I’d like to think you’re typing all this for a joke, otherwise you’d have to be the biggest imbecile I’ve ever come across. Classing someone as a bank-worker doesn’t define their race it defines their profession and whether you are defining someone’s race or profession, these are both artificial concepts. Unless of course you believe that there are a race of people born with the ability to handle mortgages and issue loans.
Look at it this way, an Ethiopian and a South African might be classed as the same race but an Ethiopian wouldn’t look at a South African and think that the other person is one of his own people. Likewise, a portuguese man wouldn’t look at a Finn or an icelandic man and think he belongs to the same group of people as him. What I’m saying is that classifications for race are artificial and so you cannot say that racism is natural because nobody is born with a concept of what race is. You learn what “race” is and therefore you have to learn to be a racist.
@emmalush wrote:
@Mr Bigstuff wrote:
I was making the point that racism is not natural, instinctive behaviour and is something that is learnt.
Im willing to believe that, but only if you can prove we dont naturaly believe in the chracteristics, ability or policy of a group of people with a common feature?
I think your scared to admit it. Prove me wrong?
You were so obviously wrong that I didn’t think it actually needed to be explained to you. But, since you insist, I’ll spell it out for you. Racial classifications are man-made so obviously believing in racial characteristics, ability, policy, etc. is something that is learnt not something that is instinctive. Therefore you are wrong. There is also no scientific basis to say that different racial groups have different abilities except for a few specific biological exceptions e.g. dark skinned people are naturally protected from the sun while paler-skinned people aren’t.
@drivel wrote:
I don’t agree with much Emma spouts off – I do agree with whoever wrote before about “ism” becoming totally unrealistic
Mr Bigs scenario is almost as silly as he is – he talks about Emma picking and choosing points to back up her arguments – as she does – disregarding all the other points – then he comes up with a 3 people left in the world scenario – get real Biggy !!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I was making the point that racism is not natural, instinctive behaviour and is something that is learnt. Clearly the point went over your head, what a pity.
You can read the article about the 57 incidents here:
It only mentions a couple of incidents but it says that the list of incidents was obtained by a Liberal Democrat MP from the Energy Minister Malcolm Wickes.
This following article says that there have been 22 major accidents at nuclear facilities since Chernobyl, not on the same scale as Chernobyl but still serious incidents:
http://million-against-nuclear.net/background/accidents.htm
The examples mentioned in the article are
1986 Hamm-Uentrop West-Germany
1993 Tomsk Russia
1999 Tokai-mura Japan
2000 Buchanan New York USA
2002 Onagawa Japan
2005 Sellafield UK
2005 Douneray UK
2005 Haddam Connecticut USAA Greenpeace document on nuclear energy (available from their website) also mentions other incidents in France and the USA. It also says that, in the year 2000, government inspectors found a “fundamental failure of safety culture” at the Sellafield nuclear processing plant. In addition, they mention violations of safety and control checks at Sellafield as well as the falsification of quality control checks.
I also came across a report relating to the ability of France’s nuclear reactors to withstand a sept. 11 style attack. Although the 1st published assessment said that a nuclear reactor could withstand impact from a fully-fuelled jumbo jet, a later leaked document said that the assessment was severely flawed. Such as the way in which they used calculations based on a military jet crashing into a reactor and applied them to estimations about a jumbo jet hitting a reactor.
So, I’m far from convinced that nuclear plants are as safe as they are portrayed to be. I’m also unconvinced about the cost-effectiveness and waste disposal methods.
Well if they’re so safe then why were there 57 scares in the past decade? I just think it’s common sense to evaluate the risks involved before embarking on projects. It’s a fact of life that things will sometimes go wrong no matter how advanced the technology and no matter how many safety measures are in place. If you increase the number of plants then the chances of something going wrong will increase too. So you have to weigh up the energy benefits with the potentially catastrophic consequences if something does go wrong and also the problem of waste disposal.
Personally, I think it’s too big a gamble. Chernobyl may have happened 20 years ago but the area around the site is still heavily contaminated and people are still suffering from the after effects including a new generation of children.
