Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[Pattern-chaser]

No-one is responsible for an accidental death. Murder and manslaughter describe situations where someone *is* responsible for the death.

Big difference, IMO.

I'd agree.

But your argument that "The victim is just as dead, the grieving are just as bereaved" makes out that the difference is small.

The harm done to the victim and their loved ones by murder and manslaughter is pretty similar. The victim is dead in both cases.

That the intent or level of knowledge in the mind of the killer is less important than the fact of the suffering of the victims.

Harm spreads in many directions; to comment on one is not to deny another. And to place relative importance on any one aspect ("less important than") seems unwise. Any aspect of the harm can be viewed from many perspectives, each correctly recognising and considering one aspect. I think it difficult or impossible to determine that one aspect is more or less significant than another. And unhelpful too.

Does that suffering not cry out for compensation and/or retribution ?

It would be my preference for that question to be answered separately for each instance of harm; every situation is different.

It's like you're telling one story ("big difference") when you're thinking about law and justice, and another story (of unimportant difference) when you're feeling-with the victims.

Then I badly mis-wrote, and I apologise.

Analogously, you seem to be arguing that what matters is whether an act has the "form, function and effect" of discrimination (rather than whether discrimination is intended).

If it walks like a duck... To the target (of discrimination), the harm done is not significantly affected by intention, but only by the discrimination. Intent is important and relevant, I agree, but it does not significantly affect the harm done.

[Samana Johann]

"What constitutes an ‘anti-Semitic’ statement?"

The term "anti-semitic" is obviously occupied by a certain group which considers all others as their enemies. Psychological such mental appearance is called "victim-claiming" while at the some time going for war. In this sense "anti-semitic" means hindering circumstance for the intent to occupy all.

Who would be troubles by someone who desires to semit. Go well!

[Sy Borg]

From what I've seen Palestinians working in Israel are not second class citizens, and they were very happy living there (until this). I doubt there would be so many settlers/invaders if Israel didn't feel the need to create a safety buffer zone. Netanyahu is extreme but he is responding to extremity.

Look at the "despots" the west has unseated - Saddam and Gaddafi. Both were considered to be overly brutal yet, since their deposition, we see why they were so harsh. It was only their harshness that allowed Iraqis and Libyans to have prosperous and peaceful lives, until the west interfered, in which case sectarian violence caused humanitarian disasters.

My views here have changed. If we gave Palestinians a decade to sort themselves out, that would be decent. If we gave them 20 years, that would be generous. If we gave them 30 years, that would be very generous. Forty years is exceedingly generous. Thus, forty years ago, I thought like you about this. Thirty years ago too, from memory. About ten years ago I lost patience.

For some time, Palestine has been deeply and profoundly self-destructive and their leaders are expert at playing the victim game when their violent actions lead to inevitable consequences. Now they are seeking martyrdom to make a point - that is, the wealthy Hamas leaders calling the shots from safe countries seek the martyrdom of the people from which they stole, which allows them to enjoy great luxury as their "pawns" are placed in harm's way.

I'm curious. What do you see as an appropriate response by Israel to Hamas's attack? I note that the UN claimed that Israel had no right to defend itself at all, which says a great deal about that organisation's ingrained cultural anti-Semitism (which is related to the anti-Semitism in universities).

That a long standing foe breaks international law, does not justify a response that breaks international law.
All societies have an elite governing class , and Hamas should have been invited to talks with reps from the US, Egypt, the UN, Israel, and the UK

Hamas should have conducted themselves in a way that would suggest that their inclusion would not be a waste of time. If they want a seat at the table, they can jolly well behave like civilised human beings first. Shooting missiles at civilians and throwing gay people off roofs does little for one's credibility.

Yes, but resentment , or hopelessness, alone won't improve the situation. How do police improve a hostage situation? Peace makers don't have a good choice of alternatives to bargaining.
For UK and US to stop arming Israel may be the beginning of successful bargaining.

Does Hamas have any responsibility here or, as "The Oppressed", do they gain a free pass? We have seen over the last - is it 70 years? - that resentment solves nothing, but that has been Hamas's strategy. Permanent resentment.

How about we also stop BRICS nations from arming Israel's neighbours? At the moment there is an uneasy balance that keeps the conflict largely confined to this small part of the Middle East. The moment Israel becomes even slightly vulnerable, it will be wiped from the map. This is what many in the UN want.

[Belinda]

That a long standing foe breaks international law, does not justify a response that breaks international law.
All societies have an elite governing class , and Hamas should have been invited to talks with reps from the US, Egypt, the UN, Israel, and the UK

Hamas should have conducted themselves in a way that would suggest that their inclusion would not be a waste of time. If they want a seat at the table, they can jolly well behave like civilised human beings first. Shooting missiles at civilians and throwing gay people off roofs does little for one's credibility.

Yes, but resentment , or hopelessness, alone won't improve the situation. How do police improve a hostage situation? Peace makers don't have a good choice of alternatives to bargaining.
For UK and US to stop arming Israel may be the beginning of successful bargaining.

Does Hamas have any responsibility here or, as "The Oppressed", do they gain a free pass? We have seen over the last - is it 70 years? - that resentment solves nothing, but that has been Hamas's strategy. Permanent resentment.

How about we also stop BRICS nations from arming Israel's neighbours? At the moment there is an uneasy balance that keeps the conflict largely confined to this small part of the Middle East. The moment Israel becomes even slightly vulnerable, it will be wiped from the map. This is what many in the UN want.

Israel should not be preserved at the cost of the genocide of another nation. However the tragedies of dismantling either Israel or Palestine may not , should not, be necessary.
If the US stopped supporting Israel's aggression there could be peace.

Ends don't justify means.If you or I were responsible for maintaining an uneasy peace by deliberate cruelty to a loved individual we would let world peace look after itself. But you and I are not politicians and we don't need to be utilitarians. The US and its allies are not simply areas of land, they are peoples with ideals who don't want to be brutalised.
Iff Netanyahu could oust Hamas by legal warfare, and a legal and humanitarian aftermath to warfare, sort of okay. But he cannot do it! And America will not and cannot do it.

[Sy Borg]

Hamas should have conducted themselves in a way that would suggest that their inclusion would not be a waste of time. If they want a seat at the table, they can jolly well behave like civilised human beings first. Shooting missiles at civilians and throwing gay people off roofs does little for one's credibility.

Yes, but resentment , or hopelessness, alone won't improve the situation. How do police improve a hostage situation? Peace makers don't have a good choice of alternatives to bargaining.
For UK and US to stop arming Israel may be the beginning of successful bargaining.

Does Hamas have any responsibility here or, as "The Oppressed", do they gain a free pass? We have seen over the last - is it 70 years? - that resentment solves nothing, but that has been Hamas's strategy. Permanent resentment.

How about we also stop BRICS nations from arming Israel's neighbours? At the moment there is an uneasy balance that keeps the conflict largely confined to this small part of the Middle East. The moment Israel becomes even slightly vulnerable, it will be wiped from the map. This is what many in the UN want.

Israel should not be preserved at the cost of the genocide of another nation. However the tragedies of dismantling either Israel or Palestine may not , should not, be necessary.
If the US stopped supporting Israel's aggression there could be peace.

Ends don't justify means.If you or I were responsible for maintaining an uneasy peace by deliberate cruelty to a loved individual we would let world peace look after itself. But you and I are not politicians and we don't need to be utilitarians. The US and its allies are not simply areas of land, they are peoples with ideals who don't want to be brutalised.
Iff Netanyahu could oust Hamas by legal warfare, and a legal and humanitarian aftermath to warfare, sort of okay. But he cannot do it! And America will not and cannot do it.

If US stopped supporting Israel, Israel would not exist. I think that's what people want. The UN's Francesca Albanese claimed that Israel had no legal right to defend itself; her loathing for Jews and Israel is well known.

The entire situation, as it has for a long time, depends on Hamas being prepared to back off. Hamas started this with their missiles aimed at civilians and they are perhaps the only ones who can finish it, but they will never compromise, they see no middle ground.

[Belinda]

Yes, but resentment , or hopelessness, alone won't improve the situation. How do police improve a hostage situation? Peace makers don't have a good choice of alternatives to bargaining.
For UK and US to stop arming Israel may be the beginning of successful bargaining.

Does Hamas have any responsibility here or, as "The Oppressed", do they gain a free pass? We have seen over the last - is it 70 years? - that resentment solves nothing, but that has been Hamas's strategy. Permanent resentment.

How about we also stop BRICS nations from arming Israel's neighbours? At the moment there is an uneasy balance that keeps the conflict largely confined to this small part of the Middle East. The moment Israel becomes even slightly vulnerable, it will be wiped from the map. This is what many in the UN want.

Israel should not be preserved at the cost of the genocide of another nation. However the tragedies of dismantling either Israel or Palestine may not , should not, be necessary.
If the US stopped supporting Israel's aggression there could be peace.

Ends don't justify means.If you or I were responsible for maintaining an uneasy peace by deliberate cruelty to a loved individual we would let world peace look after itself. But you and I are not politicians and we don't need to be utilitarians. The US and its allies are not simply areas of land, they are peoples with ideals who don't want to be brutalised.
Iff Netanyahu could oust Hamas by legal warfare, and a legal and humanitarian aftermath to warfare, sort of okay. But he cannot do it! And America will not and cannot do it.

If US stopped supporting Israel, Israel would not exist. I think that's what people want. The UN's Francesca Albanese claimed that Israel had no legal right to defend itself; her loathing for Jews and Israel is well known.

The entire situation, as it has for a long time, depends on Hamas being prepared to back off. Hamas started this with their missiles aimed at civilians and they are perhaps the only ones who can finish it, but they will never compromise, they see no middle ground.

The US and Europe can support Israel better by helping it towards peace. Hamas ,unlike Hitler's Nazis, can be bargained with, as they have no daft myth to misguide them. The reason Hamas "sees no middle ground " is distrust of Israel and its backers.

[Sy Borg]

Does Hamas have any responsibility here or, as "The Oppressed", do they gain a free pass? We have seen over the last - is it 70 years? - that resentment solves nothing, but that has been Hamas's strategy. Permanent resentment.

How about we also stop BRICS nations from arming Israel's neighbours? At the moment there is an uneasy balance that keeps the conflict largely confined to this small part of the Middle East. The moment Israel becomes even slightly vulnerable, it will be wiped from the map. This is what many in the UN want.

Israel should not be preserved at the cost of the genocide of another nation. However the tragedies of dismantling either Israel or Palestine may not , should not, be necessary.
If the US stopped supporting Israel's aggression there could be peace.

Ends don't justify means.If you or I were responsible for maintaining an uneasy peace by deliberate cruelty to a loved individual we would let world peace look after itself. But you and I are not politicians and we don't need to be utilitarians. The US and its allies are not simply areas of land, they are peoples with ideals who don't want to be brutalised.
Iff Netanyahu could oust Hamas by legal warfare, and a legal and humanitarian aftermath to warfare, sort of okay. But he cannot do it! And America will not and cannot do it.

If US stopped supporting Israel, Israel would not exist. I think that's what people want. The UN's Francesca Albanese claimed that Israel had no legal right to defend itself; her loathing for Jews and Israel is well known.

The entire situation, as it has for a long time, depends on Hamas being prepared to back off. Hamas started this with their missiles aimed at civilians and they are perhaps the only ones who can finish it, but they will never compromise, they see no middle ground.

The US and Europe can support Israel better by helping it towards peace. Hamas ,unlike Hitler's Nazis, can be bargained with, as they have no daft myth to misguide them. The reason Hamas "sees no middle ground " is distrust of Israel and its backers.

Hamas cannot be trusted or reasoned with. Their ideology is as strict as Hitler's - they will settle for nothing less than the complete destruction of Israel. Do you need evidence that reasoning with them is impossible? From the anti-defamation league website:

Ismail Haniyeh in 2020: He explained that Hamas rejects ceasefire agreements by which, “Gaza would become Singapore,” preferring to remain at war with Israel until a Palestinian state is established from the River to the Sea: “We cannot, in exchange for money or projects, give up Palestine and our weapons. We will not give up the resistance... We will not recognize Israel, Palestine must stretch from the [Jordan] River to the [Mediterranean] Sea.”

Hamas official, Hamad Al-Regeb in an April 2023 sermon: He prayed for “annihilation” and “paralysis” of the Jews whom he described as filthy animals: “[Allah] transformed them into filthy, ugly animals like apes and pigs because of the injustice and evil they had brought about.” Al-Regeb also prayed for the ability to “get to the necks of the Jews.”

Hamas Political Bureau Chairman Saleh Al-Arouri in an August 2023 interview: He expressed Hamas’ desire for “total war” with Israel: “Therefore, we are convinced that if a total conflict begins, the airspace and seaports of this entity will be shut down, and they will not be able to live without electricity, water, and communications.”

Ahmad Abd Al-Hadi (Hamas representative in Lebanon) in an October 12, 2023 TV show laid out Hamas’ expectation that it would be Israel that would sue for peace and indicated that a ceasefire is part of Hamas’ overall strategy, but said that he was not at liberty to say what exactly Hamas has planned for the next step after a ceasefire. He also stated that October 7 had achieved its intended purpose of landing “a blow to the normalization (of relations between Israel and Arab countries).” [in other words, the Islamist Middle eastern countries wanted to block Israel doing trade deals with the monarchist countries - never mind the death and suffering]

Hamas member, Ghazi Hamad on October 24, 2023: “Israel is a country that has no place on our land […] because it constitutes a security, military, and political catastrophe to the Arab and Islamic nation.” (October 24, 2023, LBC TV (Lebanon)). He also vowed to repeat the October 7 attacks “time and again until Israel is annihilated,” and expressing a desire to “sacrifice martyrs” (referring to Gazan civilians) for Hamas’ ideological aim of destroying Israel.

In a speech before the International Union of Muslim Scholars in Doha on January 9, 2024, Ismaeel Haniyeh, chairman of Hamas's political bureau, called the October 7 massacre the “advanced [battle] front of the Ummah.” Calling for “financial jihad” (donations to Hamas) and “jihad of the teeth” (physical jihad), he asked the international audience, “Who wishes to invest in building the jihadist generation to liberate Jerusalem and to unite the blood of the Ummah with the blood of the people of Gaza, Jerusalem, and Palestine on the land of Palestine for its liberation and the liberation of Jerusalem?”

Hamas senior leader Khaled Mashal stated on October 19, 2023 that he views the current loss of civilian life in Gaza – brought about by Hamas' strategy of using human shields – as essential: “No nation is liberated without sacrifices... In all wars, there are some civilian victims. We are not responsible for them.”

Hamas senior leader Ismail Haniyeh, commenting on the loss of civilian life in Gaza on October 26, 2023: “The blood of the women, children and elderly […] we are the ones who need this blood, so it awakens within us the revolutionary spirit.”

... The preamble to Hamas’ founding charter contains the following quote from the founder of the Muslim Brotherhood, Hassan al-Banna:

“Israel will exist and will continue to exist until Islam will obliterate it, just as it obliterated others before it" (Preamble to Hamas Charter).

... The land of Palestine is an Islamic Waqf [holy possession] consecrated for future Muslim generations until Judgment Day. No one can renounce it or any part or abandon it or any part of it. (Hamas Charter, Article 11).

Palestine is an Islamic land... Since this is the case, the liberation of Palestine is an individual duty for every Muslim wherever he may be. (Hamas Charter, Article 13).

In its founding charter, Hamas cites ...

The hour of judgment shall not come until the Muslims fight the Jews and kill them, so that the Jews hide behind trees and stones, and each tree and stone will say: 'Oh Muslim, oh servant of Allah, there is a Jew behind me, come and kill him,' except for the Gharqad tree, for it is the tree of the Jews. (Hamas Charter, Article 7).

There is no solution for the Palestinian question except through Jihad. (Hamas Charter, Article 13).

PS. I just noticed the similarities between Hama's and Hitler's language used towards "the Jewish problem".

[Good_Egg]

The harm done to the victim and their loved ones by murder and manslaughter is pretty similar. The victim is dead in both cases.

That's right. On a scale or measure of "harm", murder and manslaughter and accident are similar. And on a scale of what we might call "moral evil" murder is significantly more wrong than manslaughter, and killing by pure accident is no wrong at all.

There is no contradiction there. What there is is an argument against any philosophy which identifies evil with harmful consequences.

If it walks like a duck... To the target (of discrimination), the harm done is not significantly affected by intention, but only by the discrimination. Intent is important and relevant, I agree, but it does not significantly affect the harm done.

So long as we're talking about harm and not about evil, that's right. It makes little difference to Jews whether your anti-Israel stance is motivated by hatred of all things Jewish or merely an arbitrary choice that sees the existence of Israel as reversible but the existence of other nations as given. The harm is much the same whether someone thinks as you do or reaches the same position through bigotry and hate.

But there is a difference in terms of moral evil. You're not being evil at all. That it is Jews who suffer from your ideas is mere accident.

Once we make the harm/evil distinction, all is clear.

[Pattern-chaser]

The US and Europe can support Israel better by helping it towards peace. Hamas, unlike Hitler's Nazis, can be bargained with, as they have no daft myth to misguide them. The reason Hamas "sees no middle ground" is distrust of Israel and its backers.

Also unlike Hitler's Nazis, Hamas do not target or hate Jews, they target the (Israeli) occupiers of their land, that they would like back, please? Too much has happened for Israel to be undone, but they started off by being 'given' over half of Palestine. Now they've taken nearly all of it. And the residents of Palestine — the Palestinian people — have little left.

This conflict is a territorial dispute, so no, they're not guided by myths, or religion, or ideology. They simply seek to escape a brutal military occupation, and to reclaim at least some of their land.

[Pattern-chaser]

If it walks like a duck... To the target (of discrimination), the harm done is not significantly affected by intention, but only by the discrimination. Intent is important and relevant, I agree, but it does not significantly affect the harm done.

So long as we're talking about harm and not about evil, that's right. It makes little difference to Jews whether your anti-Israel stance is motivated by hatred of all things Jewish or merely an arbitrary choice that sees the existence of Israel as reversible but the existence of other nations as given. The harm is much the same whether someone thinks as you do or reaches the same position through bigotry and hate.

I am deeply disappointed to find that you weigh my words on the scales of hatred. I can be as mistaken as the next man, but hate plays no part in my opinions or thoughts.

The two possible explanations you offer for my position are ... incomplete. I neither hate Jews, nor wish to make Israel 'un-exist'. And I dispute that my sympathy and support for the plight of the Palestinian people causes "harm".

But there is a difference in terms of moral evil. You're not being evil at all. That it is Jews who suffer from your ideas is mere accident.

Once we make the harm/evil distinction, all is clear.

In what way do my ideas cause suffering to Jews? ...or to Israeli citizens?

[Sy Borg]

The US and Europe can support Israel better by helping it towards peace. Hamas, unlike Hitler's Nazis, can be bargained with, as they have no daft myth to misguide them. The reason Hamas "sees no middle ground" is distrust of Israel and its backers.

Also unlike Hitler's Nazis, Hamas do not target or hate Jews ...

Now I know you don't read my posts. his was posted yesterday:

Hamas official, Hamad Al-Regeb in an April 2023 sermon: He prayed for “annihilation” and “paralysis” of the Jews whom he described as filthy animals: “[Allah] transformed them into filthy, ugly animals like apes and pigs because of the injustice and evil they had brought about.” Al-Regeb also prayed for the ability to “get to the necks of the Jews.”

[Pattern-chaser]

The US and Europe can support Israel better by helping it towards peace. Hamas, unlike Hitler's Nazis, can be bargained with, as they have no daft myth to misguide them. The reason Hamas "sees no middle ground" is distrust of Israel and its backers.

Also unlike Hitler's Nazis, Hamas do not target or hate Jews ...

Now I know you don't read my posts. his was posted yesterday:

Hamas official, Hamad Al-Regeb in an April 2023 sermon: He prayed for “annihilation” and “paralysis” of the Jews whom he described as filthy animals: “[Allah] transformed them into filthy, ugly animals like apes and pigs because of the injustice and evil they had brought about.” Al-Regeb also prayed for the ability to “get to the necks of the Jews.”

I read your posts with interest. And, if the above is quoted accurately, I share your disgust and disapproval of what it says.

But I also offer this observation: the quote describes a "sermon", so it is reasonable to assume that the speaker is an Islamic cleric with some rather extreme views. Hamas is a political organisation, that attracts all kinds of people to its 'banner', but if he is also a Hamas "official", they would do well to dispense with his services, IMO. This cleric seems to be a religious extremist, and this terrible conflict is only as bad as it is thanks to bigots like this, on all sides of the argument/fight. Imagine Donald Trump as an imam, or rabbi, and you're there.

The struggle for control of historic Palestine is a territorial and political matter. Dragging religion into it can only muddy the waters even more, and make matters even worse.

[Good_Egg]

I am deeply disappointed to find that you weigh my words on the scales of hatred.

I weigh your words against that scale of intent and find you innocent of hatred. You seem to me entirely well-meaning.

I can be as mistaken as the next man, but hate plays no part in my opinions or thoughts.

I fully believe both halves of that sentence.

What I seek to dissuade you from is the "duck philosophy" that intent doesn't matter, that harm is the measure of evil. That if it quacks like a bigot then it's a bigot. That if it looks to a Jew like anti-Jewish bias then it is anti-Jewish bias.

I think you're innocent. And I'm baffled as to how you can continue to spout a philosophy which counts you guilty.

I neither hate Jews, nor wish to make Israel 'un-exist'.

Your position seemed to be that the 1948 settlement was wrong and should be rectified, that Israel is not a legitimate country with the same right and duty to defend its citizens as any other but is no more than a "brutal occupation" of Palestimian lands.

If you want to back off from that, and admit that (regardless of any issues you may have with Israel's conduct regarding border disputes or civil rights issues with how the country treats its own citizens) Israel is a legitimate country with the right to wage war on those who have attacked it, and continue to do so until they surrender, then come out and say that.

And I dispute that my sympathy and support for the plight of the Palestinian people causes "harm".

I understood you to believe that all discrimination causes harm. That applying a double standard to anyone's detriment counts as harming them. Do you want to change your mind and argue that discrimination isn't inherently harmful ?

[Sy Borg]

The US and Europe can support Israel better by helping it towards peace. Hamas, unlike Hitler's Nazis, can be bargained with, as they have no daft myth to misguide them. The reason Hamas "sees no middle ground" is distrust of Israel and its backers.

Also unlike Hitler's Nazis, Hamas do not target or hate Jews ...

Now I know you don't read my posts. his was posted yesterday:

Hamas official, Hamad Al-Regeb in an April 2023 sermon: He prayed for “annihilation” and “paralysis” of the Jews whom he described as filthy animals: “[Allah] transformed them into filthy, ugly animals like apes and pigs because of the injustice and evil they had brought about.” Al-Regeb also prayed for the ability to “get to the necks of the Jews.”

I read your posts with interest. And, if the above is quoted accurately, I share your disgust and disapproval of what it says.

But I also offer this observation: the quote describes a "sermon", so it is reasonable to assume that the speaker is an Islamic cleric with some rather extreme views. Hamas is a political organisation, that attracts all kinds of people to its 'banner', but if he is also a Hamas "official", they would do well to dispense with his services, IMO. This cleric seems to be a religious extremist, and this terrible conflict is only as bad as it is thanks to bigots like this, on all sides of the argument/fight. Imagine Donald Trump as an imam, or rabbi, and you're there. 😨

The struggle for control of historic Palestine is a territorial and political matter. Dragging religion into it can only muddy the waters even more, and make matters even worse.

It's in Hamas's brief. They do not accept a two-state solution.

I don't have disgust for the cleric's hatred. I don't like it, it doesn't resonate with me, but I just see it as an example of the intractable Palestinian attitudes. Seventy years, never once have they compromised. Not only that, but they did this attack to create a rift between Israel and the monarchist Arab states, when they were on the verge of doing a deal (and healing the old wounds that Hamas has just re-opened, at a cost to the world).

To me, this war is a self-inflicted wound. An own goal. Just as individuals ideally take responsibility for their actions, so should states. I would feel similarly if the Philippines sent missiles into China. If they did that, China would retaliate at least as hard as Israel has done to Palestine. It would be a crazy thing for Filipinos to do, despite their longstanding problems with China. Fortunately, Filipino leadership is too sensible, and cares too much about its people, to do such a rash thing.

It's like a tiny guy picking a fight with a professional boxer - it's a dumb idea. If the tiny guy keeps being picked on by the big one, then he needs to find a better strategy than risking violence. Palestine is reaping what it has sown, as is Israel. Neither are happy.

[Pattern-chaser]

I don't have disgust for the cleric's hatred. I don't like it, it doesn't resonate with me, but I just see it as an example of the intractable Palestinian attitudes. Seventy years, never once have they compromised.

I just see this as an example of intractable Israeli attitudes. Nearly three thousand years, never once have they compromised.


We can exchange comments like this forever, but it gets us nowhere. Whatever the solution to this problem is, it must surely revolve around some practical compromises? Not entrenched attitudes, but a wish for a better future?