Gordon Ramsay is a loose cannon and WAY too controversial

[ezra]

Quoting Tweedle-Dum from 14:34, 24th Oct 2005
The best way to use the Universiy's money is to invest it for highest returns in order to ensure the best service to students.

Why on earth do you assume this? If the highest-earning investment was the Concentration Camp Death Gas Company, do you think that would be the best way to use the University's money? No, of course you don't. Ipso facto, you think that 'best use' is constrained by ethical considerations. The notion of ethical investment is simply extending this point. You're bound by consistency to accept it. If you think otherwise, please explain.

On a side-note: the proposed rent strike over ethical investment was two years ago, at a different institution.

[flarewearer]

Quoting bubba from 13:34, 24th Oct 2005
Does no one seem to remember that Clement was a very famous TV Chef, possibly the first... I also remember him being very outspoken about Americans...

Are you sure you have the right Clement Freud? The Clement Freud I am familiar with is a writer, broadcaster, politician and all round bonne viveur, but I have never heard of him being a famous TV chef...

[hr]

image:www.magnificentoctopus.com/x/glosoli.png

[Prophet Tenebrae]

Quoting ezra from 02:40, 25th Oct 2005
If the highest-earning investment was the Concentration Camp Death Gas Company, do you think that would be the best way to use the University's money?

Really aging up the debate - what next, trying to fit the mean red circle of capitalism into the square hole of socialist utopia?

[hr]

IMAGE:www.btinternet.com/~brother.war/white10-2.gif

[bubba]

http://www.bookpublicity.co.uk/reviews/R17.htm
its towards the end... my parents only knew him as a chef.

Quoting flarewearer from 05:21, 25th Oct 2005

Quoting bubba from 13:34, 24th Oct 2005
Does no one seem to remember that Clement was a very famous TV Chef, possibly the first... I also remember him being very outspoken about Americans...

Are you sure you have the right Clement Freud? The Clement Freud I am familiar with is a writer, broadcaster, politician and all round bonne viveur, but I have never heard of him being a famous TV chef...

[hr]

image:www.magnificentoctopus.com/x/glosoli.png

[hr]

Who is John Galt?

[Steveo]

Quoting ezra from 02:40, 25th Oct 2005
If the highest-earning investment was the Concentration Camp Death Gas Company, do you think that would be the best way to use the University's money?

Yes, that would be the best way, because it provides the best return.

[hr]

Vote Gordon Ramsay for Rector - Friday 28th October.

[Bryn]

Quoting Steveo from 16:38, 25th Oct 2005Yes, that would be the best way, because it provides the best return.

Is money really all you people care about?

[hr]

http://bryn.ipfox.com

[Steveo]

Personally, yes. When it comes to an institution I want to see continue and flourish, yes.

I'm tired of other peoples 'ethics' being imposed upon me.

[hr]

Vote Gordon Ramsay for Rector - Friday 28th October.

[Ben Reilly]

Quoting Steveo from 18:03, 25th Oct 2005
Personally, yes. When it comes to an institution I want to see continue and flourish, yes.

I'm tired of other peoples 'ethics' being imposed upon me.

[hr]

Vote Gordon Ramsay for Rector - Friday 28th October.

They aren't other peoples' ethics- they are our ethics- the ethics of the university community. That is the thing about Ethical Investment- it is not the ethics of any random group of people- it is the ethics of us.

Do you believe that the University should not have an Ethics committee about research?

[hr]

University of St Andrews Clothing - http://www.standrewsclothing.com

[Bryn]

Quoting Steveo from 18:03, 25th Oct 2005
Personally, yes. When it comes to an institution I want to see continue and flourish, yes.

I'm tired of other peoples 'ethics' being imposed upon me.

Well that's fundamentally very selfish - to not care about other members of the human race, or the world in which we live. I hope that philosophy comes and bites you on the arse one day.

[hr]

http://bryn.ipfox.com

[Prophet Tenebrae]

It might do that to him - but if it does, it's likely that you're going to fall off your moral high horse and break your neck...

That's karma.

[hr]

IMAGE:www.btinternet.com/~brother.war/white10-2.gif

[ezra]

Steveo, you say:

[steveo]

Yes, that would be the best way, because it provides the best return.

but then you also say:

I'm tired of other peoples 'ethics' being imposed upon me.

Now what do you think the force of the word 'best' is? Yes, that's right, you unobservant muppet - it's an ethical term. You're making a value judgement about investments, but you don't even realise it. And you don't have anything to justify your position; you just assert it. Engage your brain, ffs.

Let's take an example to show how ridiculous your position is. Suppose that you do something deeply immoral - I dunno, suppose you murder someone, or rape them. Then you get caught, and the law tries you, and finds you guilty. Do you think an appropriate response would be 'hey judge, I'm sick of you imposing your "ethics" on me'? Come on. If something's morally wrong, then people are justified in acting to prevent it from happening. Systems of laws are a paradigm instance of this, but you don't seem to realise it. Perhaps if you gave your position some thought, rather than just asserting it, it might become more coherent.

[Bryn]

Quoting Prophet Tenebrae from 18:19, 25th Oct 2005
It might do that to him - but if it does, it's likely that you're going to fall off your moral high horse and break your neck...

That's karma.

I'm not on a moral high horse. I just try to check I'm doing right by the world, rather than accepting that the world is a shitty place and behaving like a shit to fit in.

[hr]

http://bryn.ipfox.com

[DrAlex]

I was going to say this isn't a productive area of discussion. Then I remember this is the sinner.

[hr]

http://standrews.facebook.com/profile.php?id=37100343

[BenEsq]

Quoting Steveo from 18:03, 25th Oct 2005
Personally, yes. When it comes to an institution I want to see continue and flourish, yes.

I'm tired of other peoples 'ethics' being imposed upon me.

[hr]

Vote Gordon Ramsay for Rector - Friday 28th October.

Hmm, interesting. I personally have no qualms in taking the attitude "You are right from your side, I am right from mine". Also, just as I'd expect you to stand up for the implementation of your ethics, I will fight fervently for mine. That's my opinion anyway.

Now, you speak of other people's ethics being imposed upon you. I'd rebut that by saying that the same at present is being done to me: Until the University has a more coherent and laid out policy on investment that is socially responsible, I am having an opposing take on ethics (the relative absence thereof) rammed down my throat. I'm sorry to disagree, but I will always fight for my beliefs - I'd encourage you to stand up for yours.

Also, at present, the University already has an ethical standard. It won't invest in Cocaine production and distribution despite the potential great returns, because a line has been drawn. To put it simply, it's about 'raising the bar' - not the introduction of some entirely new alien concept. That's my opinion.

Also, on the matter of ethics. I won't stand to have a sexist rector in any way, shape or form. If you'd care to argue that Ramsay didn't 'mean' his comments on female chefs or that he was joking, please do - I however am not laughing. Promoting his views is of course a privilege of the media coverage he receives. I personally believe that this is giving a platform to views that are not condusive towards fighting unecessary and unfounded discrimination.

[hr]

Lions and tigers and bears...Oh my!

[exnihilo]

Even when his views are based on hard fact? Novel.

[exnihilo]

Even when his views are based on hard fact?

Even when a lot of the sensationalist coverage of the comments are misconstruing and deliberately misrepresenting his point?

Novel.

[hr]

Vote for Gordon Ramsay on Friday!

[DrAlex]

Well, I commend you for finally getting back to the topic at hand. As for the sexism thing, I am, surprise surprise, not convinced. Having read the article, it seemed to me like he picked a very resonable message, that is that young people in this country are eating shit food, and then expressed it in an inappropriate manner. If I said this, no one would give two shits and put it down to a slip of the tongue, but when a celebrity does it, he's a sexist pig.

Now, before the Pepper lobby chimes up, and I know your salivating at the opportunity, I'm not saying that Ramsay is or is not in fact sexist. I'm saying that this dreck isn't proof.

[hr]

http://standrews.facebook.com/profile.php?id=37100343

[Rufus]

How many of you actually read the news stories that accompany Gordon's quotes?

Context is all.

Most of you just need to dry clean your sense of humour and grow a slightly thicker skin.

[hr]

I went to the doctor n'guess what he told me
Guess what he told me
He said girl u better try to have fun
No matter what you'll do
But he's a fool

[puzzled]

Quoting Ben Reilly from 18:10, 25th Oct 2005
They aren't other peoples' ethics- they are our ethics- the ethics of the university community. That is the thing about Ethical Investment- it is not the ethics of any random group of people- it is the ethics of us.

No they are not. The only 'community ethics' which bind us all are laws. The 'ethical' investment lobby can't win the fight against big pharma, tobacco, arms merchants, oil etc in parliament, so they harrase institutions instead.

The university's purpose is scholarship - its assets must be maximised (within the law) to facilitate this. Arguements elsewhere in this thread about not investing in cocaine production are facile - all of the companies the university invests in are in legal areas of business.

Our facilities, academics pay, scholarships etc are in a shitty enough state with out the court cutting our funding any more.

I can't help but notice that the income from ethically unsound investments has not got so much blood on it that the protesters refused to come to st andrews...

[ezra]

The only 'community ethics' which bind us all are laws . . . The university's purpose is scholarship - its assets must be maximised (within the law) to facilitate this . . . I can't help but notice that the income from ethically unsound investments has not got so much blood on it that the protesters refused to come to st andrews...

puzzled, try applying SOME DEGREE OF THOUGHT TO THIS ISSUE, rather than just saying the first thing that comes to mind.

i. There are ethical constraints, and then there are laws. The two are separate. You're under an obligation not to rape, murder, abuse people, etc., even if there is absolutely no chance that you may get caught
ii. The university's purpose is 'scholarship', is it? This is evidently wrong; it's also there for education, teaching, mutual support, etc, but I'll let that pass. Suppose the university's purpose is scholarship. Nothing follows from this: it doesn't entail that people take any legally permissible means to support it. Plagiarism isn't strictly illegal, but it *is* unethical, and that's why you shouldn't engage in it. If you know anything about how scientific research works, you'll know that there are ethics committees which govern certain kinds of experiment. This isn't a legal issue, it's an ethical one. Just because something has a 'purpose' doesn't mean that any means to that end are justified. The purpose of a gun is to kill people, but that doesn't justify gunning down innocents.
iii. Your 'dirty hands' objection completely misses the point. If people stopped going to universities because those universities engaged in unethical activities, they'd never get to the level of engagement required to do anything about it. You don't change the system by boycotting it; you change it by getting involved, and making use of it. It's an obvious point, but you've missed it.
iv. You've also failed to respond to my point (I thought it was also pretty obvious, and a pretty damaging point as far as you rposition goes); namely that there are instances, hypothetical or otherwise, where only a complete idiot (or a psychopath) would think the university should prioritise income over ethics. If it were legal to invest in a company which specialised in distributing racist literature - and profitable - do you think the university should do so? If buying shares in Mugabe's regime were possible, profitable, and legal - would you do so?

Like I said, try thinking about it.