Paris, anyone?

[eighthobstruction]

I thought there was a great deal of respect and listening involved in the discussion....it was a discussion for at least until post 400, and a very god discussion too....thank you....

[Frances_iom]

.....it was a discussion for at least until post 400, and a very god discussion too....thank you....

it was indeed! - tho normally believers captitalise

[Serial_Apologist]

Not everyone agrees with you. Some people believe that facts, like anything else, are socially constructed. Facts vary over time and from culture to culture. Don't get 'fed up', just because people don't agree with you.

One would first of all need tio determine what one meant by facts being socially constructed, and, even before that define what one means by a fact.

On the question of trusting in one's gut instincts, surely their usefulness depends on the issue in question; and that in turn would depend on how well in touch with ones instincts one is. Instinctual expression and impulisiveness are not the same things: impulse usually arises when instinctual responses have havitually been repressed because their expression is regarded by society as suspect. One does not need to depend on ones instincts when it comes to matters of generally accepted knowledge; there again, acceptance of that knowledge depends on the source, and whether one's experience of that source, direct or via trusted sources, leads one to trust it or not.

In the end one is in a sense always depending on ones instincts to operate appropriately, informing ones conscious choice, because the only alternative is to question them; and, given that the source of ones capacity for questioning, just like any other physical or mental act, is instinctual, for that to have complete validity would depend on needing to question one's very questioning. And so on, in an infinity of regressions.

At a certain point one decides that the best way to avoid infinte regressions of this kind is to trust in trusting one's nature to operate best when allowed to, without being forced; and there are various mental or meditational practices which can assist - including listening to music, or doing anything else, with undivided attention, which some claim to be a highly desirable state of consciousness from which to think or let mental and other instinctual processes, from reacting to immediate danger to recognising the difference between that and "received wisdoms", operate efficiently.

[ahinton]

Not everyone agrees with you. Some people believe that facts, like anything else, are socially constructed. Facts vary over time and from culture to culture. Don't get 'fed up', just because people don't agree with you.

That's not what I suggested. Facts are facts at any given time.

[MrGongGong]

This

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/king-abdullah-dead-david-cameron-pays-tribute-to-monarchs-work-for-peace-in-saudi-arabia-9997183.html

Mr Cameron's meeting with the King three years ago was a visit intended "to broaden and deepen the UK-Saudi partnership on issues from social development to security to business relations".

might be part of the problem rather than the solution?

[Nick Armstrong]

http://electronicintifada.net/blogs/ali-abunimah/france-begins-jailing-people-ironic-comments

Some links in that piece to French news for the francophones...

[Richard Barrett]

Even if the OP intended discussion to be non-political, it was politicized already in #4.

How is it possible to talk about an event with enormous political influences and implications without saying anything about politics? IMO it isn't the politics that's the problem but the descent into "how can you say that?" - "I didn't say that" - "yes you did" exchanges and the like. Although it seems that around here it's more acceptable for that sort of thing to take place in the context of a discussion of EJ Moeran than in the context of a discussion of things that are arguably (sorry Moeran fans) even more important. It would be nice to avoid intemperate exchanges, but claiming that politics shouldn't form part of any discussions between people whose shared interest is (in this case) music is just as political a thing to say as calling for a socialist revolution. Well, I've said all this before.

[Flosshilde]

Although it seems that around here it's more acceptable for that sort of thing to take place in the context of a discussion of EJ Moeran

Indeed - just look at the 'Choir' forum for intemperate discussion (but of course that's religion, which is just as inflamatory as politics )

[ahinton]

How is it possible to talk about an event with enormous political influences and implications without saying anything about politics? IMO it isn't the politics that's the problem but the descent into "how can you say that?" - "I didn't say that" - "yes you did" exchanges and the like. Although it seems that around here it's more acceptable for that sort of thing to take place in the context of a discussion of EJ Moeran than in the context of a discussion of things that are arguably (sorry Moeran fans) even more important. It would be nice to avoid intemperate exchanges, but claiming that politics shouldn't form part of any discussions between people whose shared interest is (in this case) music is just as political a thing to say as calling for a socialist revolution. Well, I've said all this before.

Yes, you have, but I continue to believe that it bears - indeed needs - repetition. I find it sad and unfortunate that any discussion topics that are about or might include matters of politics (including but not limited to party politics) tend to be at best regarded with caution and at worst ditched in the Diversions thread or terminated altogether, especially as such topics do not necessarily have overtly to suggest political content such as the one about the May election, for example; like you, I find it hard to imagine that the kind of abrasive tit-for-tat exchanges that you mention appear exclusively in political threads or in othes where politics has been brought into the discussion. I agree that such exchanges lower the tone of any discussion but, if it safe to assume that civilised discussion can take place on non-political or not obviously political topics, it ought to be so in respect of political topics or those in which political arguments might reasonably be raised.

It's up to FF, of course, but I'd have thought that there are other ways of dealing with those kinds of exchange besides monitoring political content with a possible view to putting it out to grass if such exchanges begin to appear.

[ahinton]

Indeed - just look at the 'Choir' forum for intemperate discussion (but of course that's religion, which is just as inflamatory as politics )

In that case, one might almost be forgiven (though not necessarily by FF!) for supposing that there is an ever-present risk that discussions of politics, Moeran (and why only him?!), religion, choirs, race/immigration/emigration be thought by nature to invite intemperate discussion!

That said, we seem to have come a long way from Paris; Hebden Bridge in Yorkshire, perhaps (once described as "the lesbian capital of the UK", though on the basis of what evidence I have no idea)...

[MrGongGong]

Indeed - just look at the 'Choir' forum for intemperate discussion (but of course that's religion, which is just as inflamatory as politics )

I can't do that as I was banned for making comments about Cradle of Filth or something like that, BUT given that they are all interested in church music I would expect that there wouldn't be ANY conflict whatsoever.

[Flosshilde]

Hebden Bridge in Yorkshire, perhaps (once described as "the lesbian capital of the UK", though on the basis of what evidence I have no idea)...

I think because a lot of lesbians live there? But I don't know why they move there. Bernard what's his name (not Manning), Mrs Thatcher's press secretary, also lives (if he's still alive) there. I don't think that's what attracts lesbians to the place.

[Flosshilde]

I can't do that as I was banned for making comments about Cradle of Filth or something like that, BUT given that they are all interested in church music I would expect that there wouldn't be ANY conflict whatsoever.

Wanna bet? Just try suggesting that girls are as good as boys in church choirs .

[ahinton]

I think because a lot of lesbians live there? But I don't know why they move there. Bernard what's his name (not Manning), Mrs Thatcher's press secretary, also lives (if he's still alive) there. I don't think that's what attracts lesbians to the place.

!!!

The person you're thinking of is Bernard Ingham who is indeed still alive and was actually born in Hebden Bridge, although his questionable popularity there is not merely a matter of concern to its lesbian population, as http://www.theguardian.com/uk/the-no...m-hillsborough would appear to demonstrate; I have no evidence that lesbians are attracted to enormous eyebrows either. Bernard Manning died several years ago.

[ahinton]

Wanna bet? Just try suggesting that girls are as good as boys in church choirs .

...and, even today, you'll risk getting shouted at by some that girls should not even be allowed in them!