The Hazards of Belief

recedite · 25-07-2017 04:00PM

On the gay cake thing, it seems obvious that the bakery were offering to bake the cake, but refusing to stick on the message. So their assurances that they were "too busy" don't really stack up.

But, the guy still fails because the laws in RoI are different to the laws in NI. Basically, a business can refuse to print a political message in RoI, but in NI that would be counted as discrimination.
It says in the article that he has multiple litigations in progress, so maybe he has one going in NI too. In which case we might hear of it later.

seamus · 25-07-2017 05:49PM

recedite wrote: »

On the gay cake thing, it seems obvious that the bakery were offering to bake the cake, but refusing to stick on the message. So their assurances that they were "too busy" don't really stack up.

That's disingenuous. The bakery offered to bake any cake without a message and let him take it away. They were refusing to put any message on it, not just his message. Because they didn't have time to do so. And that's the key measure for discrimination - whether he was singled out.

By far the longest and most difficult part of a cake is the decoration. And any business with a full order book will turn away large pieces of work.

The guy's problem is that he launched the case under the assumption that he had been discriminated against, rather than seeking to establish whether he was or not.

Sounds like a complete fruitcake.

Without decoration, though.

recedite · 25-07-2017 07:01PM

seamus wrote: »

That's disingenuous. The bakery offered to bake any cake without a message and let him take it away. They were refusing to put any message on it, not just his message. Because they didn't have time to do so.

They had time to bake a cake (and charge handsomely for that) but no time to put the requested message on it? Come off it, that's nonsense

I'm no cake expert, but the message is normally a squirt of icing isn't it?

PopePalpatine · 25-07-2017 08:18PM

seamus wrote: »

That's disingenuous. The bakery offered to bake any cake without a message and let him take it away. They were refusing to put any message on it, not just his message. Because they didn't have time to do so. And that's the key measure for discrimination - whether he was singled out.

By far the longest and most difficult part of a cake is the decoration. And any business with a full order book will turn away large pieces of work.

The guy's problem is that he launched the case under the assumption that he had been discriminated against, rather than seeking to establish whether he was or not.

Sounds like a complete fruitcake.

Without decoration, though.

He would be half-baked, by any chance?

Peregrinus · 26-07-2017 02:03AM

recedite wrote: »

They had time to bake a cake (and charge handsomely for that) but no time to put the requested message on it? Come off it, that's nonsense
I'm no cake expert, but the message is normally a squirt of icing isn't it?

You're not a whizz in the kitchen, are you?

Cakes are baked in batches, and the baking largely proceeds without active supervision - you don't have to watch the oven; just set the timer and go off and do something else. But they are iced individually, and it requires individual attention and a fair degree of skill throughout the process. And the long screed that he wanted - thirty-two words, by my count - would be an extraordinarily tricky one to design and implement.

And he's the plaintiff; the burden of proof is on him. In the NI case, the bakery initially accepted the order and later changed their minds, and acknowledged that they did so because the inscription requested was incompatible with the beliefs of the owners. If there's no similar acknowledgement in this case - and it doesn't seem that their will be - then the onus of proving this lies on the plaintiff.

He doesn't have to prove it beyond all reasonable doubt; just on the balance of probabilities. But he shot himself in the foot by demanding such a bizarrely rambling and complex inscription, since that makes the bakery's "too much time and trouble" account of why they turned away the order entirely plausible. He should have looked for a three-word slogan.

seamus · 26-07-2017 10:52AM

recedite wrote: »

I'm no cake expert, but the message is normally a squirt of icing isn't it?

Depends on what you want. If you're getting something from a supermarket bakery counter, then yes.

If you read the story, he asked for for all sorts of craziness; letters in CAPS, letters in bold and so forth.

This requires the use of stencilling, which also needs one to roll out icing, cut it, stick it on, etc.

The shop estimated the time it would take to prepare this one cake to be one full day.

This guy went out of his way to make the order deliberately difficult so as to maximise the chances that someone would refuse to make it.

Why didn't he go to a Supervalu and ask them to pipe on a simple message to a simple cake? Because they probably would have done it and he wouldn't have been able to sue.

recedite · 26-07-2017 04:32PM

Its a pity the message wasn't simpler, and its a pity the bakery didn't just refuse it on the basis that they didn't want to be associated with the message. At least then we would learn something.

Having said that, it is totally unfair to put a hardworking bakery through all the stress and expense of having to defend against a legal action based on some punter's personal hobbyhorse. And that's what happened here, and also in NI with Asher's bakery.

IMO though, either a marriage equality or an anti-marriage equality message could be refused by a bakery in RoI, but the same messages cannot be refused in NI.

recedite · 26-07-2017 04:35PM

Peregrinus wrote: »

You're not a whizz in the kitchen, are you?

In fairness, no.
But at least I know not to say this to someone who has just baked a lovely cake;

Peregrinus wrote: »

the baking largely proceeds without active supervision - you don't have to watch the oven; just set the timer and go off and do something else.

Hotblack Desiato · 26-07-2017 06:24PM

seamus wrote: »

Because they probably would have done it and he wouldn't have been able to sue.

"Help help I'm being oppressed"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l8ukak8P2vY

Peregrinus · 27-07-2017 01:04AM

Is it time for the obligatory Fr. Ted "I want cake" reference now?

silverharp · 27-07-2017 10:30PM

Dawkins banned from speaking event

http://www.spiked-online.com/newsite/article/dawkins-cheered-for-hating-christianity-banned-for-hating-islam/20132#.WXpaL9Tyu01

Dawkins: cheered for hating Christianity, banned for hating Islam

KPFA, a radio station in Berkeley, California, has cancelled an event with scientist and author Richard Dawkins because it disapproved of his controversial views on Islam. Dawkins had been scheduled to speak in August about his memoir, A Brief Candle in the Dark. ‘We had booked this event based entirely on [Dawkins’s] excellent new book on science’, KPFA informed ticket-holders. ‘We didn’t know he had offended and hurt – in his tweets and other comments on Islam – so many people.’
Dawkins, an avowed atheist, has fiercely criticised Islam, particularly its blasphemy laws and sanction of murder for apostates. In his book The God Delusion, he laments the sentencing to death of a man in Afghanistan for converting to Christianity. ‘Did he kill anyone, hurt anybody, steal anything, damage anything? No. All he did was change his mind.’ One tweet of his from 2013, cited in KPFA’s statement, reads: ‘I think Islam is the greatest force for evil in the world today. I’ve said so, often and loudly.’
Sure, Dawkins’s arguments can be blunt and dogmatic. But it’s hard to see why criticising extreme religious practices, or expressing dislike for a particular religion, should be deemed so harmful. There’s also a glaring double standard here. Dawkins is just as scathing about Christianity, and about all faiths, as he is about Islam. And yet it is only his criticism of Islam that has got him in trouble.
In response to the ban, the American science writer and founder of the Skeptics Society, Michael Shermer, pointed to this hypocrisy. ‘[Apparently] it is acceptable to criticise Christianity and Judaism but not Islam’, he said. This is all particularly galling given that people risk far more speaking out against Islam than they do speaking out against Christianity. Critics can risk not just their reputations, but sometimes their lives as well.
Even if you deplore Dawkins’s views, he should be allowed to freely express them. Strangely, KPFA has extended an invitation to Dawkins to talk about his views on air, rather than at the event. It’s unlikely he’ll take up the offer, following this ridiculous snub. But it’s a shame that, yet again, free exchange has been shut down to the end of protecting people from offence.

recedite · 28-07-2017 08:48PM

I remember when Dawkins was doing that same event in Dun Laoghaire, one Muslim gentleman who had apparently attended so that he could be outraged, put up his hand during the audience question time and made some complaint about the "islamophobia". Dawkins just glossed over it with a polite answer, and as nobody else seemed particularly animated by the topic, the general conversation moved on to other things.
That's probably the best way to handle wannabee controversy.

Hotblack Desiato · 28-07-2017 11:15PM

I was there and don't recall that, which says it all really.

There were some discreet security bods apparent on the way out. I doubt RD goes wherever he wants without consideration being given to security, at least not since Charlie Hebdo - although there's quite a few xtians in the US who'd happily do him too, I'd wager.

Sure these days even the Buddhists are getting uppity. It's almost as if religion is not that universal benign force for good like they told me it was all through my childhood years...

recedite · 29-07-2017 09:21AM

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

I was there and don't recall that, which says it all really....

Yes, there were some snoring noises coming from where you were seated, around that time :pac:

silverharp · 29-07-2017 10:51AM

recedite wrote: »

I remember when Dawkins was doing that same event in Dun Laoghaire, one Muslim gentleman who had apparently attended so that he could be outraged, put up his hand during the audience question time and made some complaint about the "islamophobia". Dawkins just glossed over it with a polite answer, and as nobody else seemed particularly animated by the topic, the general conversation moved on to other things.
That's probably the best way to handle wannabee controversy.

in one of the comment sections of this article or a similar one was a Muslim saying that this was BS and that Dawkins shouldnt be banned. I guess his point was non muslims getting offended on behalf of muslims when they have no idea what said muslims are actually thinking.

MrPudding · 30-07-2017 10:17PM

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

I was there and don't recall that, which says it all really.

There were some discreet security bods apparent on the way out. I doubt RD goes wherever he wants without consideration being given to security, at least not since Charlie Hebdo - although there's quite a few xtians in the US who'd happily do him too, I'd wager.

Sure these days even the Buddhists are getting uppity. It's almost as if religion is not that universal benign force for good like they told me it was all through my childhood years...

I was at a couple of his guest lectures at NCH in London. The first was quite large, but the second was very intimate. Closed audience, but I had a chat with him after the second lecture, and we left the building together. He just walked, by himself to his hotel, for a spot of dinner. No security during the lecture, after, or as he walked to the hotel.

It might be different for big public lectures, though I don't know.

MrP

Hotblack Desiato · 31-07-2017 12:15PM

13 injured during annual Croagh Patrick climb

Bunch of saps :rolleyes:

CptMackey · 31-07-2017 12:19PM

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

13 injured during annual Croagh Patrick climb

Bunch of saps :rolleyes:

The part that annoys me is that the helicopter was called out because people went up in bad conditions. Could god not save them?

Was there planning permission sought for the eyesore at the top?

nuac · 31-07-2017 12:45PM

CptMackey wrote: »

The part that annoys me is that the helicopter was called out because people went up in bad conditions. Could god not save them?

Was there planning permission sought for the eyesore at the top?

The present oratory at the summit of Croagh Patrick was built in 1906. Planning legislation came into force on 1.10.1964. Neither the building nor the use has significantly changed over the years, so it complies with planning legislation

There is evidence of buildings there for thousands of years, long before St Patrick got there.

Before his time, the local god, Crom Dúbh was worshipped on CruachAigle, its old name. There were traces of a road from Cruachan Roscommon to Croagh Patrick. Part of that pilgrim route, from Ballintubber thru Aughagower to CP is now fully sign posted.

Local tradition is that virgins were sacrificed to Crom Dúbh on the mountain.

CabanSail · 02-08-2017 03:33AM

nuac wrote: »

Local tradition is that virgins were sacrificed to Crom Dúbh on the mountain.

Now it's in the Car Park late at night.

nuac · 03-08-2017 02:47PM

CabanSail wrote: »

Now it's in the Car Park late at night.

Whatever. Category mods have carte blanche here, and on Croagh Patrick

One of the local Canon lawyers told me the Reek indulgences kick in once you pass the pub at the bottom of the mountain.

Up to 40 years ago people started to climb at nightfall. The stream of lights along and up the path made a colourful sight. Not the only colourful incident in those days. Rumours of drinking while climbing, occasional losses of virginity. Eheu fugaces

Changed to a day pilgrimage for safety reasons

Hotblack Desiato · 03-08-2017 09:36PM

God's protection only works in the daytime then. And even then, not so well...

smacl · 07-08-2017 01:07PM

nuac wrote: »

Up to 40 years ago people started to climb at nightfall. The stream of lights along and up the path made a colourful sight. Not the only colourful incident in those days. Rumours of drinking while climbing, occasional losses of virginity. Eheu fugaces

Worth remembering that Croagh Patrick was a place of worship long before the Christians came on the scene and in best syncretic tradition they nabbed it for St Patrick rather than tell the locals they couldn't worship there any more. If you look at the number of Síle na gig carvings that have found their way into monastic settlements and churches in the west, I'd say the occasional losses of virginity around these sites predate Christianity as well

robindch · 08-08-2017 10:40AM

Between 2008 and 2016, there were a reported 24,000 cases of measles in France, resulting in 1,500 complications and ten deaths. On foot of this, next year, France will mandate vaccines:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/france-vaccination-mandatory-2018-next-year-children-health-measles-dying-anti-vaxxers-edouard-a7824246.html

Independent wrote:

Parents in France will be legally obliged to vaccinate their children from 2018, the government has announced. French Prime Minister ouard Philippe said it was “unacceptable” that children are "still dying of measles” in the country where some of the earliest vaccines were pioneered.

Three childhood vaccines, for diphtheria, tetanus and polio, are currently mandatory in France. Others, including those against hepatitis and whooping cough, are simply recommended. Announcing the policy, Mr Philippe evoked the name of Louis Pasteur, the French biologist who made breakthroughs in disease research and developed the first vaccines for rabies and anthrax in the 19th century. He said all the vaccines which are universally recommended by health authorities – 11 in total – would be compulsory. The move follows a similar initiative in Italy, which recently banned non-vaccinated children from attending state schools.

The World Health Organisation has warned of major measles outbreaks spreading across Europe despite the availability of a safe, effective vaccine. Anti-vaccine movements, whose followers are known as anti-vaxxers, are believed to have contributed to low rates of immunisation against the highly contagious disease in a number of countries. A recent survey found more than three out of 10 French people don’t trust vaccines, with just 52 per cent of participants saying the benefits of vaccination outweigh the risks. There were 79 cases of measles reported in France in the first two months of 2017, mostly due to an outbreak of 50 cases in the north-eastern Lorraine region, according to the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control.

Between the beginning of 2008 and the end of 2016, more than 24,000 cases of measles were declared in France, official figures show. Of these, around 1,500 had serious complications and there were 10 deaths. Vaccination is not mandatory in Britain, and around 24,000 children a year in England are not immunised against measles, mumps and

rubella. Fear surrounding the combined inoculation for the three infectious diseases, known as the MMR vaccine, stems in part from a discredited study claiming to show a link between the jab and autism. The paper, published in medical journal The Lancet nearly 20 years ago by disgraced former doctor Andrew Wakefield, led to a heavy fall in uptake among parents at the time, but exhaustive scientific research has now disproved the theory.

Two children in the UK have died of measles since 2006, and in 2013 a young man from Wales died of the disease – all a “waste of life,” Dr Farah Jameel told doctors at the British Medical Association (BMA) annual meeting last month. The BMA is calling for evidence to be submitted to the UK Government on “the potential advantages and disadvantages of childhood immunisation made mandatory under the law”.

Hotblack Desiato · 08-08-2017 11:10AM

They almost make it sound like poor old Wakefield was like any other scientist who tried their best but their hypothesis was later disproven.

It was a deliberate act of fraud for financial gain, and that needs to be emphasised again and again.

Peregrinus · 09-08-2017 01:43AM

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

They almost make it sound like poor old Wakefield was like any other scientist who tried their best but their hypothesis was later disproven.

It was a deliberate act of fraud for financial gain, and that needs to be emphasised again and again.

So, not so much a hazard of belief, then, as a hazard of greed?

volchitsa · 09-08-2017 06:50AM

Peregrinus wrote: »

So, not so much a hazard of belief, then, as a hazard of greed?

It is quite a coincidence though, the way the two nouns seem to be so closely associated in so many religions, and invariably to the benefit of the top men.

Peregrinus · 09-08-2017 07:08AM

volchitsa wrote: »

It is quite a coincidence though, the way the two nouns seem to be so closely associated in so many religions, and invariably to the benefit of the top men.

Mmm. They are similarly associated in so many non-religious ideologies and movements, no? After all, atheists tend to be philosophical materialists, and materialism offers quite a good fit with greed, isn't it? We have no reason at all to expect atheists to be less greedy, corrupt, venal, etc than theists. So I don't think that abjuring religion will do anything at all to protect you from greed on the part of those whose leadership or authority you accept.

The people who were mislead by Wakefield weren't misled by their faith in religion or in religious claims; they were mislead by their faith in science and the scientific process. Which, OK, is still a hazard of belief; just not a hazard of religious belief.

09-08-2017 07:28AM

Peregrinus wrote: »

So, not so much a hazard of belief, then, as a hazard of greed?

I think that the belief that various anti-vaxxers have in him is pretty hazardous.
Even though he was very clearly shown to be wrong and so very clearly caught with his hand in the biscuit tin, he's got a legion of believers and defenders to the point that it's actually his business model now. People invent conspiracies from whole cloth to glorify him while he urges that narrative on so he can continue to be a professional victim and earn his way giving talks and writing books and accepting donations.
It could well be the case that he's actually started to buy into his own hype by this stage, or that he's aware of it, but believes that he's now serving a greater good.

I don't think that it's people's belief in science that lead them to follow Wakefield as the science never really supported him in the first place, nor does it now.
His believers are a lot more of the types who mistrust science and evidence and anything that contradicts their views.

volchitsa · 09-08-2017 07:30AM

Hmm, dunno that it works that way though - most science is reliable, and Wakefield used people's usually well founded trust in science to set up an organized scam. An individual, not science as a whole, consciously chose to defraud people.

Whereas all religions seem to positively require ordinary members to give large amounts of their money to "keep" a nonproductive clerical class, and sometimes in quite some style. It's such an inherent part of religion that the clerical class themselves could even believe in what they are doing.

The Hazards of Belief

Comments