Post Covid 19 beliefs

[Owlswing]

The craft?

Craft suggests that something is being fashioned into something else.

What would you say that "something" is? And what would you say it is being fashioned into?

May I say that defensiveness here could well be construed as reinforcing the suspicion that secrecy surrounds your belief system.

Incidentallly you are very good at commenting, usually negatively, on the beliefs of others, yet you rarely seem to express any beliefs of your own, except, of course, your obvious belief that your place is sat on the right hand of God - but never mentioning which God!

)O(

[Sriram]

I think I understand what sririam is trying to convey and don't find anything arrogant about it. It could be misunderstanding over how he phrases things, seems clear enough to me.

My beliefs haven't changed because of covid-19 but hope at the end of it we emerge to a world that is kinder. There's not much evidence of that at the moment but we've a way to go.

Thanks Robbie.    Brave of you to post your opinion against the tide....

Leave alone philosophy and spirituality....most people are unlikely to understand all that. What I am surprised is that people here claim to be knowledgeable  in science but seem to be stuck to the mid 20th century science.  Very old school.....

There are many insights offered by science in recent years that clearly point to a shift away from physicalism that has been so much a fundamental part of early science.

Try this...

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/consciousness-self-organization-and-neuroscience/201912/what-is-reality-interview-donald

or this video if you want....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oYp5XuGYqqY

Cheers.

Sriram

[Walt Zingmatilder]

When you can write a post without the sneer ibn your words I might bother to answer you until then . . . 

I rather think that sneer is in your head rather than my words.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

You can say just whatever you like! And you usually do.

Anything that happens in Circle IS covered by an Oath of Secrecy taken by every member of my Coven upon Initiation.

And every other Coven that I have ever had any interaction with.

Just like the Freemason's in that respect.

)O(

That would explain why, when I came across a football match between the Wiccans and the Freemasons no one could tell me what the score was.

[Owlswing]

I rather think that sneer is in your head rather than my words.

Of that I have no doubt, but have you never considered that the words that you use tend to carefull camouflage that sneer.

If you use other words maybe there would be no sneer to recognise. There again, over the years I have come to recognise that your words are carefully chosen to ensure that the sneer is there.

When it is my beliefs that you are commenting on your contempt for those beliefs is obvious. That my beliefs are not alone in attracting your contempt is acknowledged.

[Owlswing]

That would explain why, when I came across a football match between the Wiccans and the Freemasons no one could tell me what the score was.

See my response to your post immediately prior to this one!

Your sense of humour lacks only one thing - humour! Especially when it is aimed to take the piss out of someome else or their comments.

Please, however, don't stop trying to be humourous, I wait with bated breath for the day that you achieve it! I have a bottle of Napoleon brandy waiting for that day, I just hope that I live long enough to open it!

[Stranger]

Leave alone philosophy and spirituality....most people are unlikely to understand all that. What I am surprised is that people here claim to be knowledgeable  in science but seem to be stuck to the mid 20th century science.  Very old school.....

There are many insights offered by science in recent years that clearly point to a shift away from physicalism that has been so much a fundamental part of early science.

Do you have some actual evidence of this shift? Given that you cite 20th century sources yourself and all you've done is provide more recent (mutually contradictory, which for some reason doesn't seem to bother you) examples of views that seem (to you, at least) to support your even older belief system, if you can't provide evidence that there is a general shift (say, statistics about the proportion of published papers), this just looks like playground level name-calling.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

You do seem rather fixated with issues of money, both in terms of expected payment and fines. I'm not sure this is what we are really considering in terms of right and wrong.

Parking charges are simply one of a range of ways to raise money - so people agree with them, others don't. Some feel the costs are too high. But the decision whether to charge for parking and what level to charge is a purely arbitrary one, not a matter or morality I don't think. I think there is also an issue of justice - I think many people may look to fiddle tax not just because it might provide personal gain, but because there is a feeling of injustice - the little person has to pay their tax, yet the rich guys and gals, and companies get off scot free.

I was thinking more about punishments for parking on double and single yellow lines and parking fines rather than car parks.

Regarding taxes, I think there are multiple reasons and one of them is that it is sometimes difficult for a business to generate enough income for a business-owner to manage their lifestyle and pay their taxes, so some people consider they will take the risk of not declaring all their income or put in false expense claims until the penalties for doing so are pointed out to them.

However I was thinking about more specifically moral issues - so in effect whether the threat of punishment is sufficient to prevent someone doing something they know to be wrong but which would provide personal gain for the perpetrator, or mere fun.

I think it depends on the individual - some people's behaviour is more influenced by the threat of an unpleasant punishment.

And there are countless examples of minor misdemeanours where the chances of being caught are pretty well zero - e.g. petty theft (like the bike example I used upthread) - yet people by and large still don't commit the misdemeanours - why, well I think because they recognise it to be wrong, not because the threat of punishment has any effect.

Yes a lot of people would recognise something is wrong such as stealing from a person and therefore not do it. Some of those people might be more inclined to steal from a shop as they cannot identify an individual that they are hurting. Some people may be deterred by the idea of getting caught and getting more than a slap on the wrist - a criminal record could result in unemployment, inability to get a visa to travel etc. Difficult to generalise that punishment has no deterrent effect.

There is also a really good example where you can compare punishment with rehabilitation - speeding offences. Punishment with a fine and point on the licence is much less effective in preventing repeat offences than going on a speed awareness course (the rehabilitation option).

Maybe - I have not seen the stats. But you would get a lot less people on the course if you did not threaten them with a fine and points on their licence if they did not attend.

[ProfessorDavey]

I was thinking more about punishments for parking on double and single yellow lines and parking fines rather than car parks.

Blimey, we really are in the word of dancing on minute pin-heads. I was thinking more about major moral issues and what it is that influences people to take actions they consider to be correct and not engage in activities they consider not to be correct, even if that might provide personal gain to them. I don't think distinctions between car park fines and on-street parking fines is really what I was considering here. And once again I don't think most people consider parking restrictions etc to be a moral issue, do they.

Yes a lot of people would recognise something is wrong such as stealing from a person and therefore not do it. Some of those people might be more inclined to steal from a shop as they cannot identify an individual that they are hurting. Some people may be deterred by the idea of getting caught and getting more than a slap on the wrist - a criminal record could result in unemployment, inability to get a visa to travel etc.

Some people might - but then if that is the case why is repeat offending after being caught so prevalent - if it were a deterrent, in theory, surely it must be a much greater deterrent in practice - in other words if you have been caught and punished. But it doesn't seem to be.

Difficult to generalise that punishment has no deterrent effect.

I think it is pretty easy to take a view, as there is amply research to show that punishment has very little effect on reoffending and indeed more severe punishment seems to increase, rather than decrease, reoffending rates.

Maybe - I have not seen the stats. But you would get a lot less people on the course if you did not threaten them with a fine and points on their licence if they did not attend.

The reoffending rates for people having attended the course are I think 25% lower than for people who were punished. Not sure if you've been on one of the courses - but it was brilliant - really interesting, informative and thought provoking. Taught me things I thought I knew but didn't really. As with many such courses there is a lot of interactive group work and a key thing that came out from those discussions is how we wish the course was available to everyone, not just those caught speeding (and then only in certain limits). In a bizarre way it is so good that you almost want to recommend that people speed, get caught, and get to go on it. I don't really mean that but you know what I means. There is no doubt in my mind (and the stats back it up) that going on the course has affected my behaviour when driving far more than the threat of a fine or even the one previous time I got a speeding fine, about 12 years ago.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Blimey, we really are in the word of dancing on minute pin-heads. I was thinking more about major moral issues and what it is that influences people to take actions they consider to be correct and not engage in activities they consider not to be correct, even if that might provide personal gain to them. I don't think distinctions between car park fines and on-street parking fines is really what I was considering here. And once again I don't think most people consider parking restrictions etc to be a moral issue, do they.

I think it is a moral issue if I thought I might cause an accident or block traffic flow.

Some people might - but then if that is the case why is repeat offending after being caught so prevalent - if it were a deterrent, in theory, surely it must be a much greater deterrent in practice - in other words if you have been caught and punished. But it doesn't seem to be.

I think it's complex - people could be stealing for all sorts of reasons e.g. because austerity/ cuts to public services and benefits means they have developed a view that no one cares about them so they do not need to care about other people. 

I think it is pretty easy to take a view, as there is amply research to show that punishment has very little effect on reoffending and indeed more severe punishment seems to increase, rather than decrease, reoffending rates.

I am not arguing that punishment is a quick fix to all the inequalities in society. I was arguing that punishment serves a purpose e.g. sending a message that an action is disapproved of but other measures would be needed to change behaviour.

The reoffending rates for people having attended the course are I think 25% lower than for people who were punished. Not sure if you've been on one of the courses - but it was brilliant - really interesting, informative and thought provoking. Taught me things I thought I knew but didn't really. As with many such courses there is a lot of interactive group work and a key thing that came out from those discussions is how we wish the course was available to everyone, not just those caught speeding (and then only in certain limits). In a bizarre way it is so good that you almost want to recommend that people speed, get caught, and get to go on it. I don't really mean that but you know what I means. There is no doubt in my mind (and the stats back it up) that going on the course has affected my behaviour when driving far more than the threat of a fine or even the one previous time I got a speeding fine, about 12 years ago.

No - I have not been required to go on a course yet but yes would like to. I have received speeding fines after being captured on speeding cameras on local roads going less than 10 mph above speed limit, but I have not been threatened with penalty points.

[ProfessorDavey]

I have received speeding fines after being captured on speeding cameras on local roads going less than 10 mph above speed limit, but I have not been threatened with penalty points.

I note the plural on fines - so presume you have had more than one fine. In which case why did the punishment (the fine) deter you from reoffending.

No - I have not been required to go on a course yet but yes would like to.

I really do think it should be made available to everyone and certainly to those who have committed any speeding offence. I think you'd certainly benefit from the course if, as you've implied, you've been fined for being less that 10 miles an hour above (I presume) a 30mph limit if these are local roads. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

I think the most starling information that I gained from the course is the kind of corollary of stopping distance, but much more starling. It is the speed that you are travelling when driving above the speed limit when you reach a point that you'd have been able to stop if traveling at the speed limit. It is shocking. 

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

I note the plural on fines - so presume you have had more than one fine. In which case why did the punishment (the fine) deter you from reoffending.

It did - I have never been caught by the same camera twice. Once I become aware of the camera because I have got a fine, it reminds me to pay attention to my speed when I am in the area of that camera. Other times, I did not spot the road sign for a temporary speed limit reduction and assumed the speed limit was the same it had always been on that road. Cameras work for me in keeping me sticking to the limit even when there is a clear road - because I don't want a fine. I enjoy driving and it's easy to drive faster than the speed limit if the car you are driving is quite smooth to drive and the road is clear.

I really do think it should be made available to everyone and certainly to those who have committed any speeding offence. I think you'd certainly benefit from the course if, as you've implied, you've been fined for being less that 10 miles an hour above (I presume) a 30mph limit if these are local roads. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

I was doing maybe 45 on a fairly empty 40mph road (dual carriageway) once. Another time I was driving my daughter to swimming around 5am - again doing about 45 in a 40 mph zone as we were running late. And one time a 30mph speed limit round the corner from my house had dropped to 20mph due to road works while I had been out of the country so the camera went off on my drive home from the airport.

But yes I would benefit from a course. My natural inclination is to drive fast on motorways as it is enjoyable in a powerful car - you don't really feel it - and if it seemed safe I would do it more often if I thought I wouldn't get caught. So maybe a course would reduce that tendency. 

I think the most starling information that I gained from the course is the kind of corollary of stopping distance, but much more starling. It is the speed that you are travelling when driving above the speed limit when you reach a point that you'd have been able to stop if traveling at the speed limit. It is shocking.

Yes - I think about stopping distances when driving fast on the motorway and even though the roads are clear when I do it, anything unexpected could materialise that I could not anticipate and the laws of physics would determine my ability to stop. So you're right. And possibly a course would tip me over into curbing my speeding. My husband has been on a course and it worked for a while and it still does work sometimes but then are also times when he still speeds - maybe because he sometimes perceives that he is unlikely to get caught but I don't know what causes this change in perception.

[ProfessorDavey]

It did - I have never been caught by the same camera twice.

This isn't about the punishment preventing you from being caught by the same camera again, but preventing you offending again - in other words not speeding.

[ProfessorDavey]

I was doing maybe 45 on a fairly empty 40mph road (dual carriageway) once. Another time I was driving my daughter to swimming around 5am - again doing about 45 in a 40 mph zone as we were running late. And one time a 30mph speed limit round the corner from my house had dropped to 20mph due to road works while I had been out of the country so the camera went off on my drive home from the airport.

But yes I would benefit from a course. My natural inclination is to drive fast on motorways as it is enjoyable in a powerful car - you don't really feel it - and if it seemed safe I would do it more often if I thought I wouldn't get caught. So maybe a course would reduce that tendency.
 
Yes - I think about stopping distances when driving fast on the motorway and even though the roads are clear when I do it, anything unexpected could materialise that I could not anticipate and the laws of physics would determine my ability to stop. So you're right. And possibly a course would tip me over into curbing my speeding. My husband has been on a course and it worked for a while and it still does work sometimes but then are also times when he still speeds - maybe because he sometimes perceives that he is unlikely to get caught but I don't know what causes this change in perception.

I think many of us understand stopping distances, as we get taught that in the theory test. But I think impact speed to more chilling.

So (don't google it please) - imagine the following:

30mph area - you are driving at 30mph - a child steps out and you are just able to stop in time before hitting her. If you are driving faster than 30mph you will certainly hit her - but at what speed.

If you were driving at 35mph (rather than 30mph) and you try to stop as quickly as you can, how fast will you be traveling when you hit her.

How about at 40mph?

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

This isn't about the punishment preventing you from being caught by the same camera again, but preventing you offending again - in other words not speeding.

If there were cameras everywhere combined with a hefty fine for getting caught I would stop offending completely because I would weigh up the thought of the fine against the reason why I was considering speeding, and would pretty much conclude the only good reason to incur the fine would be some kind of emergency.

Getting back to religious punishments - I think many times the thought of being held accountable for your choices works for some people in helping modify their behaviour but I can't generalise. I know it helped me stop drinking alcohol - it wasn't the only reason but it was one reason that combined with other reasons added up to me stopping. And no I don't mean that I am expecting to be hit with a bolt of lightening if I drink alcohol,

ETA: There would also be occasions where even though I know I will be held accountable I would still do something wrong to prove a point or to show I did not care or that I won't be controlled or because I was acting on emotion. There are occasions where people are prepared to suffer pain and death to stand up for a point of principle especially if they feel there is a grave injustice - some people consider people like that martyrs. I am thinking of the women in Saudi who drove even though it was illegal. Or the Jewish kids who go to prison rather than serve in the IDF in the Occupied Territories.