No matter what your opinion, it is important that you vote in the 2019 EU elections for the UK. Many young people believe that it is not worth voting or couldn't care less. You will be voting for your future. It is ironic that older people take the time to vote. I shall be voting I am 68 years of age. I shall be dead before the full effects of Brexit will be felt.There are many things to consider and probably the top most priority is climate change. And following that it is pollution. Do you want to live in a world that can sustain itself? Europe has woken up and is now leading the way politically if not in terms of action. Devising policies for climate change and pollution needs co-operation in Europe and Britain should be part of this. This is good reason enough for remaining as part of the EU.
Do you want the NHS to be privatised? Do you want to eat chlorine washed chicken? Do you want free and easy capitalism designed just for the rich but not for you? Do you want reciprocal measures taken against you to prevent your free movement to work and love in Europe? Do you want the UK government to make it very difficult for you to live in the UK with a foreign partner?
The EU guarantees that you can live in the UK with a foreign partner or spouse without restriction. Do not let prejudice prevent you from having this most basic of human rights.
If you want your life restricted then you know who to vote for. If you want freedom and some sort of chance of a sustainable life then you know who not to vote for to vote for - it is your choice.
The Brexit supporters say as a matter of principle that they do not want to live in a country which is dictated to by un-elected leaders. Well ask them, who elected the head of the World Trade Organisation and who elected the head of Nato? These are two organisations with which we share our sovereignty and to our advantage. We either indirectly or directly vote for the leadership of the EU we have a much greater say in what policies the EU follow.
Who elected our Head of State? No-one, so are Brexiters republicans as a matter of principle? Ask them what are their principles? They have no answers about sovereignty, climate change, pollution and your freedom to chose where you live and with whom.
The EU elections are not another referendum but they are your opportunity to make your views felt. Young people go out and vote for your future .
Monday, 20 May 2019
Tuesday, 7 May 2019
Israel Folau
Israel Folau has been sanctioned by the Australian Rugby authorities for making anti-gay comments. He is reputed to have published the following comment on social media: “hell awaits” for “drunks, homosexuals, adulterers, liars, fornicators, thieves, atheists, idolators”. He encourages those that he criticises to repent and turn to Jesus.
I can't see the problem with fundamental Christians making such comments: they are after all just opinions.
There is no doubt that Israel Folau would consider me to be an atheist and that I am condemned to hell. I don't feel in the least bit offended by this. The only thing I would say to Israel is: where is the evidence that hell exists? And if there is a God, what evidence is there that he or she would send gays or fornicators there? The answer is none. Israel is being irrational. There is no need to take offence.
As long as Israel does not deliberately foul opponents who he believes to be “drunks, homosexuals, adulterers, liars, fornicators, thieves, atheists or idolators”, then I suggest that we let him get along with his game. You are what you do but not what you say. Christianity precludes violence and encourages forgiveness does it not?
He is a great rugby player and his religious opinions are his own and do not need to be taking seriously, just let him play rugby.
https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2019/may/07/israel-folaus-rugby-australia-code-of-conduct-likely-to-run-into-fourth-day
I can't see the problem with fundamental Christians making such comments: they are after all just opinions.
There is no doubt that Israel Folau would consider me to be an atheist and that I am condemned to hell. I don't feel in the least bit offended by this. The only thing I would say to Israel is: where is the evidence that hell exists? And if there is a God, what evidence is there that he or she would send gays or fornicators there? The answer is none. Israel is being irrational. There is no need to take offence.
As long as Israel does not deliberately foul opponents who he believes to be “drunks, homosexuals, adulterers, liars, fornicators, thieves, atheists or idolators”, then I suggest that we let him get along with his game. You are what you do but not what you say. Christianity precludes violence and encourages forgiveness does it not?
He is a great rugby player and his religious opinions are his own and do not need to be taking seriously, just let him play rugby.
https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2019/may/07/israel-folaus-rugby-australia-code-of-conduct-likely-to-run-into-fourth-day
Caster Semenya
It is both irrational and immoral to ban miss Semenya from running unless she takes medicine that reduces her naturally "high" level of testosterone in her blood. She has been proven to be woman both genetically and physically. The scientific evidence is in her favour. She is not cheating.
All of us have varying levels of both oestrogen and testosterone in are blood and if a natural higher level of testosterone gives an athlete an advantage - then so what. Longer legs give jumpers and advantage. There is no doubt that being tall gave Usain Bolt an advantage. Bolt rarely got beaten; is anyone suggesting that he should have been handicapped to level the field? No one tries to ban men with naturally occurring high levels of testosterone; so why should women?
It would seem that miss Semenya's times come no where near to challenging the times of the elite men in the same events. Why therefore should she be banned fro female competition? There is little evidence to suggest that other female athletes are withdrawing from competition against her. It also seems that male sprinters were not driven out of the the sprinting events because of Bolt's dominance. They just strove harder to compete.
The IAAF and CAS have done their best to eliminating cheating in their sport from athletes using performance enhancing drugs. It is now ironic that they should prevent some athletes from competing unless they take performance reducing drugs. Surely this is both irrational and immoral. Medicine should not be driven to the the cause of administrating unnecessary and possibly damaging treatment.
It is time for a rethink based upon science, evidence and common sense. Miss Semenya should be allowed to run without medical treatment for a condition that does no harm to her or her sport.
https://theconversation.com/caster-semenyas-impossible-situation-testosterone-gets-special-scrutiny-but-doesnt-necessarily-make-her-faster-116407
All of us have varying levels of both oestrogen and testosterone in are blood and if a natural higher level of testosterone gives an athlete an advantage - then so what. Longer legs give jumpers and advantage. There is no doubt that being tall gave Usain Bolt an advantage. Bolt rarely got beaten; is anyone suggesting that he should have been handicapped to level the field? No one tries to ban men with naturally occurring high levels of testosterone; so why should women?
It would seem that miss Semenya's times come no where near to challenging the times of the elite men in the same events. Why therefore should she be banned fro female competition? There is little evidence to suggest that other female athletes are withdrawing from competition against her. It also seems that male sprinters were not driven out of the the sprinting events because of Bolt's dominance. They just strove harder to compete.
The IAAF and CAS have done their best to eliminating cheating in their sport from athletes using performance enhancing drugs. It is now ironic that they should prevent some athletes from competing unless they take performance reducing drugs. Surely this is both irrational and immoral. Medicine should not be driven to the the cause of administrating unnecessary and possibly damaging treatment.
It is time for a rethink based upon science, evidence and common sense. Miss Semenya should be allowed to run without medical treatment for a condition that does no harm to her or her sport.
https://theconversation.com/caster-semenyas-impossible-situation-testosterone-gets-special-scrutiny-but-doesnt-necessarily-make-her-faster-116407
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
