Death And God And Burma

The randomness of death demonstrates irrefutably the meaninglessness of life and the non-existence of god.

That is two conclusions drawn from one assertion of fact so I suppose you will want a little convincing.

GOD THE GAMES MASTER

That death is random is not demonstrated by the current loss of life in Burma. A rational god might well have decided that the lives lost were justified by the provocation they would provide for international intervention and the reform of a corrupt government. He would not be a very pleasant god to believe in. He would be using the earth as a kind of game site where he could inflict decisions about climate change and just see how the Sims reacted. Oh gosh! We play games like that.

Let us look at it two ways.

IF DEATH IS NOT RANDOM

If death is not random then someone decides who dies and when. Think about it! It is a very unattractive proposition. It does not fit at all with a belief in a good god. It only fits with a belief in God the Games master (see above). Wholly innocent people die. Babies die. Very good people die early.

IF DEATH IS RANDOM

A good god could have devised a world where death is random. Could he? If so, he could have devised a world where death was not random but merit related. He did not.

The following FAQ's may assist:

IS RANDOM DEATH ESSENTIAL TO FREE WILL?

The answer is: not really. The only reason for killing people in your game is to score points. You simply need to set up a different scoring system. One that begins: Not Sending Massive Flood – BONUS – 10 Trillion Points.

IS GOD GOING TO STRIKE ME DOWN FOR POSTING THIS?

No, he probably does not exist.

If (contrary to all probabilities) he does exist then I really do not know. Maybe he likes to play with Sims like me in the game.

SHOULD YOU LIKE GOD?

None of the versions I have seen out there seem particularly attractive. If you can find a likable version of god, please let me know.

SHOULD I KILL SOMEONE BECAUSE I BELIEVE IN GOD?

I personally believe this to be a bad idea,

Everyone is entitled to their own view, however.

Ryanair Disregards the Law, Again

The Times reports today that Ryanair is facing prosecution and a substantial fine on a reference to the Office of Fair Trading by the Advertising Standards Authority. See the title link.

The following extract perhaps indicates Ryanair's attidude:

"In January Ryanair refused to withdraw an advert of a woman dressed as a schoolgirl, despite the authority’s ruling that it breached advertising rules on social responsibility and decency. Ryanair accused the authority of censorship, saying that it was run by “unelected, self-appointed dimwits”.

The authority also upheld a complaint that Ryanair had published misleading information about the effect of aviation on climate change. A Ryanair spokesman said that ASA stood for “Absolutely Stupid Asses”.

Ryanair lost £20 million in February after closing its website to comply with an OFT ruling that it should advertise prices inclusive of taxes and charges."

Ryanair has history!

The best site to visit, if you contemplate flying with them, is Ryanair Campaign. Ryanair has made repeated attacks on this site so it clearly worries them. The site comments:

"We suspect that Ryanair's main intention, as evidenced by their solicitors' letters demanding that the site be shut down as long ago as 2004, is to censor the content of this site. However, they have been successful in gaining control of the domain name ryanair.org.uk, having complained on the grounds that it infringed their trademark. This effectively censored the content, until they attempted to gain control of our current domain name, ryanaircampaign.org, and were unsuccessful, resulting in a lot of publicity. Neither judgement had anything to do with the content of this site.

We accepted the judgement (by Nominet) about our original domain name (from which we have never earned a penny, nor in any way attempted to pass ourselves off as Ryanair) and moved to the current domain name specifically to avoid the trademark issue. Search engine ratings inevitably plummeted, and the campaign was effectively over, but Ryanair could not resist snatching defeat from the jaws of victory. They made an incompetent complaint about ryanaircampaign.org, the ruling in which not only gave us publicity, but seems to be a precedent in the interests of free speech."

There is also an interesting video on YouTube:



There are also over 400 comments on this video at YouTube so you might wish to go there.

From the above, one might easily conclude that Ryanair has complete contempt for both regulatory authorities and the law. Perhaps it operates on the basis that the only penalty it will face is a financial one and that is so rich that it can afford any penalty that might be imposed. This leads to a further "perhaps". Maybe, the authorities should take this into account when deciding the level of any fine that should be imposed. If money is all they care about (rather than respect for the law or customer service) then (another "perhaps" - they are notoriously litigious) only a "massive" fine will do the trick.

I regret having sex with dead body of model: Understatement of the Year? Not Quite! His Barrister Outdid Him.

Mark Dixie Obscured

The Times prints the words before the colon in the title above between inverted commas. That is not strictly accurate. The exchange in court was in fact more chilling:

“I crouched down from behind where the legs were,” he said. “I took full advantage of someone and I should not have done it.”
His counsel Anthony Glass, QC, asked: “Do you mean you had sexual intercourse with her?”
“Yes,” he replied.
Mr Glass asked: “Did you think she was dead or unconscious?”
He replied: “I would not have expected to see anyone dead in that street. I thought she might have passed out or fallen over.”

Remember this next time you come across a disadvanteged female in the streets, blokes. Never mind the ambulance or the police; just get your trousers down. Also, fully brief your counsel on the "that street" defence and the "she might have only been unconscious" defence. If all else fails, get your mitigation in first and tell the court you were a naughty boy and "should not have done it."

This his own counsel questioning him! What is prosecuting counsel going to do with this? Does he/she have to do anything? This is a reservoir dog of a client.

His counsel admitted that this may be "a very unattractive defence."

STARTLING QUIZ QUESTION:

Who is in pole position for having made the biggest understatement of the year: Mr Dixie or his counsel Mr Glass QC?

Mark Dixie Revealed

TOPICS FOR DEBATE:

1) Mark Dixie is innocent of murder unless the jury are persuaded beyond a reasonable doubt that he is in fact guilty.

2) Mark Dixie is a disgusting human being and a reservoir dog on his own admission.

3) Thank goodness for the cab rank principle. Otherwise, Mr Dixie would have little hope of decent representation. (NB: the cab rank principle means that barristers are not allowed to turn down unpleasant cases).