Woodstock Jag

Why was this the case? I'd have thought that machines trying to work out which number had been put down ought to be a lot more difficult for a machine to compute than to work out which box has a mark in it?

I don't think the entire home support would fit very neatly into a conventional photo.

Who were the other candidates? Nicol Stephen is an alumnus of my old school. He gave a speech at Founder's Day in my S1 and asides the Second World War veteran who spent half an hour talking about trips on his "cycle" he was the most boring out of the 6 in my time there.

Exactly. This doesn't seem to have been especially well explained to people though. Under AV you could, if you really wanted, still just put an X in the box of your first preference and leave it there. It would just mean that you'd have no influence on any instant-run-off if your candidate has already been eliminated. If you like, it simulates a situation where your candidate never stood. If you truly didn't have a second preference, then under FPTP you wouldn't have even gone to the polling booth.

Beware the escape goat. They're baaad ass.

Psycho.

There should be an exclusive interview on the Jagscast within the next few days. We'll only give away a spoiler as to the details if the number of people listening to the End of Season Jagscast breaks 60. Now get listening!

Get your bahookeys over to the Jagscast site We're joined by Jagscast founder Ian Hepburn (chapwithwings) in addition to the usual rabble to look back over the season, make some frivolous suggestions about what to change at Firhill, eat some cracking pizza, assess the season ahead of us and induct a new member into the John Lambie Hall of Fame. LISTEN.

Indeed. I wasn't suggesting anything to the contrary. The age of consent is always an approximation by a society of the point at which people are capable of true consent, and some get it spectacularly wrong.

Children are not considered to be capable of consenting to a number of things for precisely this reason. That is why paedophilia is unequivocally wrong.

As Allan has explained, I'm challenging the notion of how we approach incest as a moral issue. I'm not necessarily "advocating" it or arguing that it is desirable, or necessarily even that it is permissible. What I'm questioning is our pre-conceived notion of what incest is any why people think it is "wrong". What you have engaged are several "emotive" arguments. Invoking contexts of child abuse, whilst persuasive to an anecdotal gallery, fails to acknowledge that whilst a lot of incest cases involve pressure, rape, paedophilia etc, the components at which people are really morally outraged (at least in their reasoning) is everything around the incest, and not the incest itself. It's like saying that sticking a knife into someone is always morally wrong. Whilst undoubtedly in the immediate context you think of, sticking a knife into someone is wrong, what about the surgeon who is cutting open someone on the operating table? What about the woman who is battered and bruised and under threat of her life from her abusive husband? It's not the sticking the knife into someone that is the thing that is wrong; it's the context: the motive, the intention, the consent of the person into whom the knife is inserted. Incest is conceptually the same. People are instinctively revolted by the concept: by the idea. What I argue is that this is a product of social conditioning, harking back to both historical religious authorities on the matter and a historical lack of understanding why incestuous relationships produced, statistically, a higher number of deformed offspring. What I want to know is why social taboos like homosexuality, transexuality etc have been fundamentally challenged in and of themselves, yet in many respects, the incest taboo has become more ingrained.

No need to egg them on.

The red card was a joke, because the thread was about to descend into a series of puns.

But that's what we have the age of consent for. That's why rape is a crime. It doesn't follow that this makes "incest" itself wrong any more than child abuse makes sexual intercourse "wrong". Fair point.

Spot on Allan.

Sorry, I don't follow this at all. No one's saying they should! Well exactly! So incest is clearly distinct from in-breeding!

Not "legislation" writ large, but services and the upkeep thereof, definitely. Individual freedom is paramount, and for me the core of true liberalism. Collective action is only collective action in so far as it exists to protect individual freedom. Anything more than that tips the balance and becomes majorative (sometimes minorative) tyranny. This is not to say that people should not be subject to any rule of law whatsoever. But that law must be just and not oppressive. What I'm challenging is the rational basis of the legislation. I don't regard libertarianism to be "selfish". Is it selfish to want, first and foremost, not to have norms imposed upon you by a crude majority?

You keep equating incest to in-breeding. They're not the same thing! And I'm going to keep going with this homosexuality analogy, not to insult homosexuals, but to show how ridiculous the incest exceptionalism is. Evolution's use of gender to increase genetic diversity (as opposed to the asexual or mixed-sex organisms that precede most mammals) clearly exists in such a manner as to preclude the reproductive situation involving two animals of the same sex. And yet we don't say that homosexuality or homosexual activities are wrong on the basis of their non-reproductive outcomes; quite the opposite. We separate quite clearly emotional and physical attraction and engagement from the biproduct of unprotected activity of that kind, which is the possibility of reproduction and continuation of the species.

No it's not where the argument collapses at all. Indeed precisely the point I was making is that it would be extremely difficult to argue that an animal can consent. Going back to the issue if incest, "demands that she 'consents' to" isn't consent at all. That is... rape. Consent, by definition, must not be coerced. Edit: and rape isn't an incest only crime. What we're seeing is an appeal to emotive arguments which circumstantially involve incest, but where the moral wrong is rooted in something far more general that would apply to the situation even where the two parties are not related.

Nah. A vote for the SNP is not a vote for separation. They proved that last time round. Even if they get a referendum bill through this time with help from the Greens, you can veto it on the No campaign. They also trumpeted Norway as a good model. They seem to be doing really well.

That works on so many levels

It entirely depends on whether it can be argued that an animal can consent. It's not comparable to incest. As for cars, they certainly don't make me tick on a sexual level, but each to their own.

In the last four seasons we've turned over the eventual league winners once each time at Firhill. 2007-08: Hamilton (3-0) 2008-09: St Johnstone (4-0) 2009-10: ICT (2-1) 2010-11: Dunfermline (2-0) So basically if you want to win this league, you have to lose to us at Firhill first.