Santa_Rosa

Just Setanta I think Nigel. I'm thinking of signing up just for this to be honest? Can I just do it month by month, for a tenner a time?

OK, I'll bite...Yes Rev, the 'taffs' are very proud of Joe. As are most British sports fans I know. Same as they were of Lennox Lewis, and are of Kevin Pietersen, and any other world class sportsmen i.e. NOT Rusedski who choose to represent their country, adopted or otherwise. Not that adopted applies to Calzaghe of course - he has just as much Welsh heritage as Italian. Makes no odds where he was born.

And anyway, you tell him to his face that he's not Welsh

It'll be Joe on points I reckon - but it will be one of, if not THE, toughest test of his career. If he wins, he should get sports personality of the year. Balls to Hamilton.

So it isn't necessarily to make you feel better, but is to stop you feeling bad about not helping and therefore becomes not a selfless act.

Spot on Grant. Doesn't mean what you are doing isn't a wonderful thing though. But if you think it's being done with no concession at all to your conscience you are wrong IMO.

Now if there was a SHA minikit in the back, that's a different story

But you'd have let him out before realising it

Aye, good point!

I don't get annoyed if I'm not let out either.

Oh I do. You must be a saint BOF :winkold:

But it's your conscience (self, mind, soul whatever) that tells you to do these acts everytime BOF, good or bad, big or small, so you must be doing them to appease it surely? The old addage of do unto others as you would have done to you (which is the reason for letting people out at junctions I expect) is based on this too. It feels nice to be let out, so you let others out and on some level, doing something that makes others feel nice, affects you positively. If you don't do it one time, I bet you are more likely to do it twice the next day to make up for it. I know I would be.

You don't like Merc drivers (and I know it's just an example ), so your consicence gets a little boost by denying them something that you value personally. You're affected positively by doing something negative - which was my point about why it's always worth examining your reasons for your actions. These Merc drivers are human beings like us too, and the sooner you educate your conscience to realise this, the better the world will be :winkold:

Now if there was a SHA minikit in the back, that's a different story

Well I do selfless acts every day, but I'm a mug and probably shouldn't

No you don't. You do them because your conscious wants you to and would bug you if you didn't. And you're not a mug, you're a good person who listens to his good conscience.

How to create a good conscience, if it is created, is another thing altogether mind.

Anyhow, I've got to do some work, else my conscience won't let me pick my wage packet up

Isn't giving money to Charity anonymously selfless? Especially if nobody know you do?

Yes.

But then it makes you feel good/less guilty....

And how many people actually do things like this completely anonymously? There are a few of course, and I take my hat off to them, but relatively speaking most don't I reckon.

For the purposes of your poll, it doesn't matter how many do it. As long as 1 person does it then the selfless act exists. Case closed

No - if you read my post, I said they still do it for their own reasons (their 'self') first - they just don't crave extra praise from others. So that's a good act, but not a selfless one. A No in my poll.

Isn't giving money to Charity anonymously selfless? Especially if nobody know you do?

Yes.

But then it makes you feel good/less guilty....

If you do it anonymously it shows that you are particularly benevolent (or 'good' to put it another way) as you don't care whether other people praise you for it or not. You don't seek other's approval. But you still do it as a way to keep at peace with your 'self' because your conscience won't let you NOT do it.

And how many people actually do things like this completely anonymously? There are a few of course, and I take my hat off to them, but relatively speaking most don't I reckon. I know a few people who have actually told me that they donate anonymously out of their salary. Er, well how is it anonymous if you have just told me?! Harry Enfield sent this up perfectly "Yah, I do a lot of good work for charidee. Don't like to talk about it though..."

I think most people do it, myself included, although obviously not so blatently If other people praise you (or you think they hold you in greater esteem), as well as praising yourself, you feel even better. Charities realise this too - think about the reasons why they pin a badge or a sticker to you after you drop your quid in the box. How often do you refuse the sticker? Rarely I'd suggest - it shows other people that you are generous. The charities are happy too cos it advertises their plight.

Wear your Poppy with Pride? Of course, but not only because you rightly are proud of our veterans and those that have died, but because, on some level, you are proud of yourself too. And if it encourages more good deeds, then it's a good thing.

So I guess I can't really answer the question given in the poll, because I don't think any of the alternatives are true.

Yeah, in hindsight, maybe I could have phrased the options better. I don't think there is anyway to edit them to just a simple yes or no.

however it has to be selfless as posthumus praise no matter how glowing is useless to the deceased machine that is in it for itself.

Interesting view. I'd say that posthumous praise is one of the major motivations for benevolence. How many times do you hear people say "I want to make a difference - to leave a legacy. So people can say, he was a good person." So when you take your last breath, your consicence can die happy. Or if you take the Buddhist philosophy further, it can travel to it's next body happy

Like I say - just because an action isn't selfless, doesn't mean it isn't positive. I just think that every act we perform, good or bad, we do first and foremost for our own reasons - for ourselves. It's just human nature IMO. In the simplest terms, the 'good' people listen to their conscience, the 'bad' don't. It's the people who don't have one at all that you've got to watch :-)

And if you haven't, take the time to read Twain's dialogue - Old Man addresses every argument as far as I can see.

Doesn't make me feel good, I just do it because I do

Maybe it doesn't make you feel good - but would you feel bad if you didn't do it? Probably - so on some level you do it for your own reasons. But the outcome is positive, so everyone is happy.

Grant says it doesn't matter - the important thing is that something good is done, so what if you get something out of it. And he's right of course. Nobody is saying you should stop doing good deeds just because your motives aren't entirely selfless. I just think it is always worth examining the reasons behind every action you preform good or bad.

So when you buy a Big Issue, ask yourself, do I really give a monkeys about where that bloke is going to sleep tonight, or did I just buy it so that my conscience is eased and I don't have to think about the issue of homelessness on any deeper level? Should I be doing more to help? Or are my efforts better concentrated elsewhere - do I need to focus on my family before I worry about the plight of others, etc. I find that the closer you get to understanding your 'self', the more at peace you are with it. Sounds a bit Zen and mystic I know, but the older I get, the more I think this way.

And I disagree Michelsen - for me I find it very interesting that the human mind has developed in such a way that your conscience can push you towards acts that have a positive effect on not only the beneficiaries of your actions, but your self esteem too.

Reading through the recent threads about charity got me thinking about people's reasons for donating to causes, doing voluntary work etc. According to the Old Man in Mark Twain's essay What is Man? , particularly the second part – ‘Man's Sole Impulse--the Securing of His Own Approval’ - there is no such thing as a selfless act. That basically, the only reason humans ever help anyone else is first and foremost to make themselves feel better. To salve their conscience.

I used to think that humans performed kind acts purely to benefit others, until I read this. It's compelling stuff and hard to disagree with. What do you think?

you could be a Mail reporter with rhetoric like that

Or a Guardian columnist it seems

Nice analogy blandy. Perhaps a better one would have been an elephant in a room

Auld Gordon and his pals still wouldn't see it mind

Ahh the old Tory English only jibe sneaking it's way in. :-(

How very dare you! If you've read my posts you'll know I'm not a Tory - never have been, never will. I used to be Labour before they were Tory. Big fan of Tony Benn as it happens. And I'm not entirely English either You clutch at those straws though.

And keep arguing about semantics and being mesmerized by the spinning pocket watch that swings from the clunking fist. I've had enough. Like many others, I have now seen whats at the other end of it. Someone who bottled an election, and is now bottling a promised referendum.

Nice analogy blandy. Perhaps a better one would have been an elephant in a room

Auld Gordon and his pals still wouldn't see it mind

So because you see an editorial or a view that is in some way worth more than actually reporting news?

Like I say - you brought up the media bias issue with all your bluster about only Tory rags slagging brown off. Assuming you meant their editorials and comment, I just pointed out that papers on all sides of the politcal spectrum have editorials that are ripping Brown's stance apart.

"on the issues covered by the Treaty, which replaces the failed EU Constitution."" is a key phrase but obviously as that;s not an opinion more a fact ......

and it's a fact that that statement does not mean that the treaty and the constitution aren't, to all intents and purposes, the same document.

EDIT: used a wrong smiley after an ironic statement which undermined my entire point. Decided it was safer to remove it (that one is correct)

That'll be the guardian reporting news then - I expect the Telegraph and countless other news sources says the same thing. I assumed you were talking about editorials and comment when you brought newspapers into it. My quote was comment from a Guardian columnist openly coming out and calling the government liars.

And how does this:

"The inquiry by the House of Lords European Union Committee will involve seven sub-committees taking evidence and questioning witnesses in detail on the issues covered by the Treaty, which replaces the failed EU Constitution."

mean:

the constitution and the treaty are anything other than effectively the same document.

It doesn't. More smoke and mirrors.

I maintain that the commitment in the Labour manifesto was not based on what is on the table now. End of story, pretty plain and simple really.

So that makes you, Gordon and his front benches then. Not Tony Benn, not the Guardian, not any European politician. You're right, it seems very plain and simple to me too.

shouldn't governments deliver on their promise to have a referendum, not what the outcome might be.

If they did promise it, then they shouldn't have done but to be honest, two wrongs don't make a right. It may be wrong to go back on a promise (if indeed there was one) but it would be a greater wrong to have a referendum on this basis alone.

Any government worth it’s salt should have had the foresight to see this at the time of the promise, and not made it.

:-) - and still no acceptance that they never made a commitment on this, but hey let's not stop that becoming a issue - what was this thread about Honouring or something?

Well according to the Guardian (see my previous post - you must have missed it as you posted at the same time) they did make a commitment. That's the Guardian. Not the Daily Mail or the Torygraph or any of the other tory rags that get trotted out everytime you need something to hide behind. I expect they have an agenda as well though.

shouldn't governments deliver on their promise to have a referendum, not what the outcome might be.

If they did promise it, then they shouldn't have done but to be honest, two wrongs don't make a right. It may be wrong to go back on a promise (if indeed there was one) but it would be a greater wrong to have a referendum on this basis alone.

Any government worth it’s salt should have had the foresight to see this at the time of the promise, and not made it.

Head hitting wall time - please show where this was promised?

Those thousands of google hits not good enough for you then? Why not?

Ha - its obvious today is read half a post day isn't it - is all this for children in need or something?

Have you read the manifesto - Gringo even kindly posted it earlier in the thread - or doesn't that fit in with the Daily Mail, Torygraph, Mail on Sunday and Conservative party media issues that make up the bulk of those first Google posts?

At least look at what was said rather tan listening to half a story

p.s. where do I send the sponsor money?

I haven't read the manifesto no. Too dry for me, I prefer a good Iain Banks. But plenty of people have, and I've read what they have to say. Even accounting for Tory bias at the top of those google hits, it really is a lot of people saying the same thing isn't it? And how about this from The Guardian? Not a paper renowned for it's true blue views I'd say:

The British establishment always defaults to Jesuitical. It may be indelicate to repeat what Tony Blair and Gordon Brown said in 2005 on the European constitution, but it was: "We shall put it to the British people in a referendum, and campaign wholeheartedly for a yes vote." When asked about a no vote they replied in unison that, "You cannot have a rejection of the treaty [sic] and then bring it back with a few amendments and say we will have another go." A governmental structure for the new Europe was too important for fudging. Blair proclaimed and Brown agreed: "Let the people have the final say."

I fail to see any room for equivocation here. In just two years there has been no war or national emergency to justify reneging on the pledge. Yet Gordon Brown, David Miliband and their court of lobbyists and commentators are wriggling, squirming, spinning, "re-interpreting" and forgetting. They have stood words on their head and pushed them up every orifice. No intellectual self-abuse is too great if it can cheat the voters of what was promised. Referendum denial is not political ethics for slow learners. In this case it is plain wrong.

Brown says he has "opt-outs", but these are irrelevant to the referendum as the same opt-outs applied in 2005. Miliband says the new treaty is "completely different" from the 2005 one, but no observer or other European leader agrees. The treaty has the same 250 clauses (all but 10 identical) and the same 63,000 words as the constitution. The German chancellor, Angela Merkel, admitted that the name change was simply to give British ministers squirm room.

The only substantive difference between 2005 and 2007 is that Blair thought that, while he might lose a referendum, he should go out and fight one. Brown also thinks he might lose, but lacks the guts to fight.

.

I'd never vote Tory by the way - I have no axe to grind. Just sick of the spin and lies that you laughably accused the Tories of - of course they do it too, but New Labour created this monster

It's all smoke and mirrors and I hoped we'd seen the back of it with the demise of Bliar. Unfortunately it's still alive and kicking under Brown and taking far too many people for mugs.

Head hitting wall time - please show where this was promised?

Those thousands of google hits not good enough for you then? Why not?

if you cared to read the thread and you will see that a manifesto pledge on something that is no longer in existence?

but to all intents and purposes, and according to numerous political commentators that I've heard (include foreign ones with no agenda) it's the same thing isn't it? Brown has wriggled out of this on a technicality because he is scared of the outcome IMO.

No, I think this is a decision which should be voted for by the Houses of Parliament and part of the reason why we have general elections. I think a decision should be postponed however until after the next general election.

Too many people will vote without any real knowledge of what they are voting for and why they are voting for it.

That's as maybe Tom, and a whole other argument I reckon - the key one for me here is, shouldn't governments deliver on their promise to have a referendum, not what the outcome might be.