h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

That came across in the broadcast this morning - with Nick Ferrarri - he alluded to the fact that the survey was off. I wonder if it is possible to find out what the questions were and how the survey was conducted...
hmm

Wilma

Well, quite, Ictoan. I saw that article this morning too and was about to post it here, but you beat me to it.

Yes, *which* 1,000 people are they referring to? Were they both male and female? Where do they live? Etc. . . These so-called 'surveys' are very irresponsible, imo, just as so-called 'scientific studies' using a very small control group are. They should not be published in a newspaper as some sort of 'factual finding'. Stupid sensationalist journalism.

Wilma, it would be very interesting if you could find out what the survey questions were and which people were asked.


az

here we are:

http://www.amnesty.org.uk/news/press/16618.shtml

the amnesty international page on it with a link to the full report word document with questions and answers plus some info who was asked.

oh well, done - I got sidetracked by RL. Thanks Ictoan.
Here you go, Azahar!

Wilma

I quite agree that it's irresponsible journalism. So much information drops out at each stage that when *any* survey results are published, a link to the original survey should be provided - a direct one, not just a link to the website's home page. Otherwise it's just "We've" had a look at this survey but we're not going to show it to you, just to make sure we can write something interesting." Bad BBC

A survey with a population of 1,000 is definitely on the low side. I thought at least 2,000 was needed to give a small enough error margin. Anyway, having looked at the survey, yes, the results are frightening.

But did you see the questions? They seemed rather leading.

The view on women and such is not only between fairly different cultures. Many people I know from the European mainland are quite shocked at the way many Irish girls dress. And I imagine their general opinion of them are rather influenced by that.

"Let's assume, for the moment, that it is illegal to wander around the countryside in the nude. If it is, this is a reflection in law of what originates as a social custom (public morality)."
But TRiG the question here is whether other people ought to be able to limit my personal freedom when I'm not doing them any harm.

Maybe it's what constitutes "harm".

We try to bring children up to understand "good" and "bad", "moral" and "immoral". Blokes walking round with their dangly bits showing drives a bloomin' big truck through the "right & proper" argument.

It doesn't harm me for folk to bare their bits.

It doesn't harm me for folk to have sweary words on their t-shirts.

It doesn't harm me for someone to smoke in the same building as me.

It doesn't harm me for people to march around with banners celebrating terrorism.

It doesn't harm me if my neighbour & his wife enjoy a bit of sodomy.

Loads of things don't "harm" me. Laws are meant to protect the lowest common denominator and the loudest minority interest group. That's life I'm afraid.

Yep....

"The question here is whether other people ought to be able to limit my personal freedom when I'm not doing them any harm."

Did you see post 3?

What I'm saying is that, as SWL says in post 68, some laws are based, not on the principle of 'not doing harm', but on 'public morality' (whatever that is; let's call it the morality of the majority). That being so, do we have any right to be outraged by Islamic law? Probably not.

TRiG.

It doesn't harm me for folk to bare their bits.

Not directly, anyway. It might distress you, but that's very hard to define. And all sorts of things might distress all sorts of people. You can't legislate for that. Or, at least, you shouldn't.

It doesn't harm me for folk to have sweary words on their t-shirts.

As above.

It doesn't harm me for someone to smoke in the same building as me.

Yes it does. But that's a seperate debate.

It doesn't harm me for people to march around with banners celebrating terrorism.

Erm. Tricky one that. Not directly, but it might. I think anti-hatred legislation and anti-incitement-to-violence legislation do have some justification.

It doesn't harm me if my neighbour & his wife enjoy a bit of sodomy.

No, it doesn't harm you. More, it's none of your business.

TRiG.

None of your business? There's some big assumptions right there. What if they invite you over?

And I still think we have plenty of right to be outraged at Sharia law because we don't publically put people to death.

Now here's one for you. Should it be illegal for someone to be naked on the London Underground during rush hour?

So, we have varying degrees of "harm" from activities that not all would agree are harmful.

Re: the Muslim question.
I have no intention of being inflammatory so please don't look for "harm" in what I say. Three weeks ago I spent a week visiting retailers in Glasgow and Edinburgh with my Muslim boss. It rained two days but was sunny for three. For two days, the predominant topic of conversation was w*rk. The sunny days, he would not shut up commenting on girls' clothing. Who was and wasn't wearing a bra, how short that skirt was, nice legs, fat legs etc etc ad nauseum. All this from a guy who also spent all week praising the values of Islam and not so subtly trying to persuade me to come to a mosque. Every night he instigated a discussion on Islam & Christianity.

As some of you may know, I hold fairly clear views on Islam. However, I also have fairly clear views on needing a pay cheque so I did not rise to the bait. What was interesting was his almost complete ignorance of Christianity, his astonishment when I could quote the Koraan and Hadith and his utter refusal to accept that any other point of view could be valid. On the last night I pointed out how often he had "leered" over girls in the street and he replied that to his eyes, they were not women per se. A real woman covers up, ergo girls baring flesh are not real women and therefore do not deserve the respect accorded to a real woman.

It really is a pity I need a pay cheque sometimes.

Sorry Bouncy, Simulty-post

"Should it be illegal for someone to be naked on the London Underground during rush hour?"

Err, probably. I'm mainly playing some form of devil's advocate here. There is, of course, a difference between the open street and the Underground.

TRiG.

I'm wondering if these laws in various cultures that outlaw public nudity are not actually protecting our enjoyment of sexual tittilation. I mean as Hitchcock so well understood the power of the thing resides in what's not shown and revealed. If everyone call freely walk around naked what a boring world it quickly would become. So I'm all for the hint of tit and nipple under a top and the bulge of lunch boxes. The Islamists have much to teach us......

Sorry, if I wanted to be taught about ignorance, intolerance, rascism, hypocrisy and superstition I'd just pop into my local church. At least I'd get a glass of wine

If only Cromwell hadn't come along and stopped church ales.

This converstion is getting intersting...

I launch this thought is there any path for a good society development?

For example: western world to be as it is, it was necessary to face the mediavel ages, iluminism, industrialization, women emancipation, etc and etc... and i believe western world model is quite the best way for a society to develop.

Islamic world i see it in the time of medieval ages, where the religion as lots lots of influence, feudal lords rule and take advantage of peoples ignorance, and armed families is the best security a house can have.

I don't pretend to insult obviously. But this is a very general impression.

I am open for debate