Play Nice Society, Religion & Politics Thread

[mtooler]

I’m not asking you to argue from my perspective.

I’m saying that invoking the Bible in a literal sense in a discussion with people who don’t broadly speaking don’t believe it in a literal sense is not going to achieve anything.

You’ll note I very early on agreed to disagree with you, because I know there’s no point arguing faith here, and I respect that. I would have thought you’d do the same for those who don’t share your faith. It’s not something you can logically debate, at least not productively. It’s like me saying, “My holy book says the first marriage was between two women, therefore same sex marriage is meant to be”. How would you argue against that?

Again, to be clear, I’m not saying you’re not entitled to your beliefs. I’m just saying it’s pointless invoking a faith based argument of ANY kind against people who don’t share the faith. This is why I’ve only debated puke and Bruce, neither of whom raised faith as an argument.

I get what you mean, will find it difficult to do is all, my faith is central to me and everything is influenced by it, so for someone like me it's difficult to unwrap my faith to approach something as a humanist, even if I wanted to do it.

If you holy book said 2 woman, all good each to their own, not my place to convince people what to believe, I just believe what I believe and we'll all discover the truth when we pass away.

 

[Kapanis]

Biblically because the bible says God created man and woman and animals at seperate times in a nutshell.

Outside of the bible im no scientific expert, I studied mostly in the humanities areas. My very loose understanding of natural selection and irreducible complexity has some interest to me but not enough for me to articulate it well enough for any scientifically minded people.

You use a device to communicate over the Internet but you don't sort of believe in science. The bible is not a scientific source, it's a fairytale, it's a bunch of stories, parables to to teach people what's right and wrong, how to live your life. To be totally honest I think you missed the point entirely. Shakes head, laughs in disbelief.

 

[mtooler]

You use a device to communicate over the Internet but you don't sort of believe in science. The bible is not a scientific source, it's a fairytale, it's a bunch of stories, parables to to teach people what's right and wrong, how to live your life. To be totally honest I think you missed the point entirely. Shakes head, laughs in disbelief.

I believe in repeatable observable science which is science. I believe in natural selection, adaptations and genetic mutations.

You believe nothing created something out of nothing.... best I leave all that science high horse stuff to you, it looks plenty solid ground to be mocking from.

 

[Kapanis]

I believe in repeatable observable science which is science. I believe in natural selection, adaptations and genetic mutations.

You believe nothing created something out of nothing.... best I leave all that science high horse stuff to you, it looks plenty solid ground to be mocking from.

Condescending when your argument fails seems to be your regular response. You've done it regularly, calling people's opinions comical, uneducated, unread, unread re parts of a fictitious bunch of ill educated nonsense that you've chosen to live your life by.

 

[mtooler]

Condescending when your argument fails seems to be your regular response. You've done it regularly, calling people's opinions comical, uneducated, unread, unread re parts of a fictitious bunch of ill educated nonsense that you've chosen to live your life by.

Not true on many levels, and I reject your summation of it.

So what do you believe created the first bit of matter, where did it come from?

 

[Kapanis]

Not true. So what do you believe created the first bit of matter, where did it come from?

Very true, it's very common with Christians, it's my way or nothing, very un Christian really. Pretending to be caring while really trying recruit and if you say, wait a minute that makes no sense at all, they treat you like an uneducated idiot. Let's make it clear, the bible like the Quran is not law in Australia, some of your beliefs are illegal in this country, those beliefs come from the bible, it's not the law.

 

[Angry Red Bull]

You cannot criticise research for being superficial while citing a Cameron study that draws its data from reading a bunch of non-academic books about same sex parents and their children. Like I struggle to think of a worse sampling methodology and less useful set of data, and yet you’ve brandished it as proof of your research skills and deductive abilities.

The fact you’ve only recently “just uncovered... the fact that same sex attraction has a high degree of heritability” and think this is some extraordinary discovery (when I’ve been saying from the start that would explain a huge proportion of the stats you were reporting as evidence same sex couples twist their children into being gay like them) is just too much.

You think you’re years ahead, but you’re decades behind. You are so bad at this you don’t even realise how bad you are.

Once again straight over the top. Do you ever grasp things at all....ever? Or just spurt shit because it relieves your need? The point idiot was that supposed experts are fallable which was a rebut to the other idiots assertion it's comes from an expert and is therefore authoritative presumably because it suits your arguments which is a consistent theme. You not being attached gay rights lobby and all...... liar.

The fact you are an idiot is only surpassed by you being an effing C. Never met a more obnoxious fool.

You've connected me to about 6 propositions from eugenics to castration and I've referenced nor spoken about any. Truth doesn't matter to you nor the gay lobby it seems (you being the spokesperson here on this site) just that you cast enough BS to malign the character of anyone putting an opposing position. That way opposition is undermined. Says a lot in stealth about the supporting foundations of the lobby itself that it's necessary to do so

The survey results were the exact same ones that yesterday you said you didn't dispute. Understandable really it must be hard to keep on top of what current BS you're peddling.....the sheer volume makes it impossible

For the record yes I believe I'm way ahead of you on pretty much all things I can see not that that's a high bar. lol

 

[mtooler]

Very true, it's very common with Christians, it's my way or nothing, very un Christian really. Pretending to be caring while really trying recruit and if you say, wait a minute that makes no sense at all, they treat you like an uneducated idiot. Let's make it clear, the bible like the Quran is not law in Australia, some of your beliefs are illegal in this country, those beliefs come from the bible, it's not the law.

Not true, regardless of whether you continue to make assertions different. Im not generalisations or theys.

Im not trying to recruit, rather refute.

Make it clear about what? The law is sacred to you? Or did I say the bible was the law? I dont follow what your saying at all there.

I doubt you want to hear that significant parts of the law can find its origins in biblical teachings as an aside.

Im not going to belittle and slander you, like you consistently are doing to people with alternate views to you, but Im happy to get back to the science though that you brought up with me. Ive put forward what I believe to be where matter all started from, which you have repeatedly derided. Where is it that you believe scientifically everything started from? Where are you placing your faith in creation?

 

[Kapanis]

Not true, regardless of whether you continue to make assertions different. Im not generalisations or theys.

Im not trying to recruit, rather refute.

Make it clear about what? The law is sacred to you? Or did I say the bible was the law? I dont follow what your saying at all there.

I doubt you want to hear that significant parts of the law can find its origins in biblical teachings as an aside.

Im happy to get back to the science though that you brought up with me. Ive put forward what I believe to be where matter all started from, which you have repeatedly derided. Where is it that you believe scientifically everything started from? Where are you placing your faith in creation?

If someone doesn't believe in your book your condescending to them, the bible is not the law in Australia, never has been. You twist reason for your own agenda, the law is the law, it's pretty simple. Ill just do what you do, answers questions I want to and ignore the ones I don't want to to. I'm not going to talk science with someone who sort of thought about it while Adam gave eve a rib, some chick turned to salt because she looked back when she shouldn't, some bird became pregnant from an angel, a guy disappeared from his tomb and someone said he rose from the dead. Give me a break, there's more chance of the swans wining the 2014 grannie than having an intelligent, non Christian biased history of reality with you.

 

[Angry Red Bull]

What's the difference between a lesbian and a walrus?

One smells like fish and has a moustache. The other one is a walrus

He he he he snort he he lmao

Lesbian foreplay:

Can we use the blue one tonight.

He he he snort he he lmao

 

[BarneyBent]

Once again straight over the top. Do you ever grasp things at all....ever? Or just spurt shit because it relieves your need? The point idiot was that supposed experts are fallable which was a rebut to the other idiots assertion it's comes from an expert and is therefore authoritative presumably because it suits your arguments which is a consistent theme. You not being attached gay rights lobby and all...... liar.

No, you are the one missing the point. You’re willing to accept bad research without any critical analysis when it suits your agenda, but dismiss reports for superficiality when it suits yours. I haven’t actually cited these reports you’re talking about, haven’t looked at them one way or another. But you’ve never bothered to address my comments on the Cameron and Schumm articles, instead dismissing me as disputing the hard facts or something lol. It’s just bizarre, you are entirely unwilling to examine or defend your own sources when they suit your needs.

The fact you are an idiot is only surpassed by you being an effing C. Never met a more obnoxious fool.

Lol. That’s hilarious.

You've connected me to about 6 propositions from eugenics to castration and I've referenced nor spoken about any.

You haven’t spoken about castration, I never claimed you have. Stop making shit up. You HAVE talked about wanting to prevent homosexuals from having children so that they don’t make more homosexuals, because homosexuality is literally a genetic aberration. That is eugenics. You might not like that fact, but it is.

Truth doesn't matter to you nor the gay lobby it seems (you being the spokesperson here on this site) just that you cast enough BS to malign the character of anyone putting an opposing position. That way opposition is undermined. Says a lot in stealth about the supporting foundations of the lobby itself that it's necessary to do so

Have I done that to Bruce? To mtooler? To RW, or anyone else that disagrees with me on this thread? No. I’ve argued with you, I’ve shown why your position is a discriminatory one, and because you don’t like that you’re claiming I’m maligning your character.

The survey results were the exact same ones that yesterday you said you didn't dispute. Understandable really it must be hard to keep on top of what current BS you're peddling.....the sheer volume makes it impossible

Ding ding ding ding ding, yet another example of puke failing basic critical thinking.

I said I don’t dispite that homosexuals are more likely to have homosexual children. I did not say that I agree with any of the reasons proposed by Cameron. In any case was going off the data provided by Schumm, which while still not good enough to asses anything close to true rates of homosexuality in same sex couples, at least confirms an effect.

This is exactly what I’m talking about. You can’t seem to comprehend that numbers are meaningless without context. You were using Cameron to argue that homosexual parents turn otherwise straight people gay, but there is ZERO evidence for that, because we don’t know a) how gayness, straightness and everything in between is assessed, b) the influence of same sex parents on simply being more willing to ACKNOWLEDGE or identify with non-heterosexuality (separate from actual changes to attraction) compared to the general population, and c) the genetic factor (which is probably gigantic).

So yeah, I don’t dispute that homosexual parents have a higher rate of homosexual children. Doesn’t mean I think the Cameron study is useful for pretty much anything.

For the record yes I believe I'm way ahead of you on pretty much all things I can see not that that's a high bar. lol

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning–Kruger_effect

 

[mtooler]

If someone doesn't believe in your book your condescending to them, the bible is not the law in Australia, never has been. You twist reason for your own agenda, the law is the law, it's pretty simple. Ill just do what you do, answers questions I want to and ignore the ones I don't want to to. I'm not going to talk science with someone who sort of thought about it while Adam gave eve a rib, some chick turned to salt because she looked back when she shouldn't, some bird became pregnant from an angel, a guy disappeared from his tomb and someone said he rose from the dead. Give me a break, there's more chance of the swans wining the 2014 grannie than having an intelligent, non Christian biased history of reality with you.

Im not condescending, thats what your posts are as shown above yet again, the only one mentioning science is me. I answer all questions asked of me. In conflicts people tend to project their own stances and behaviours upon others and accuse them of doing what they are themselves doing. That is your conduct at the moment.

I dont get what the point is about the law in Australia is not the bible. No one arguing it is. Have a quick read of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) and see where a lot of the sections derive their moral compass from. Thats right, the bible.

As for science even if you can identify transitional fossils for evolution which are fairly contestable, humanists are going to have difficulty rationally explaining the point of creation. The best position I think a humanist like yourself can take, and a totally reasonable one at that, would be "I dont know". Probably would lead people to some gnostic stance at that point. Irreducible complexity is a fascinating look at natural selection, creation, evolution.

Im no science expert, I just know nothing cant create something with nothing and if you believe that your indeed a man of great faith!

 

[BarneyBent]

Im not condescending, thats what your posts are as shown above yet again, the only one mentioning science is me. I answer all questions asked of me. In conflicts people tend to project their own stances and behaviours upon others and accuse them of doing what they are themselves doing. That is your conduct at the moment.

I dont get what the point is about the law in Australia is not the bible. No one arguing it is. Have a quick read of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) and see where a lot of the sections derive their moral compass from. Thats right, the bible.

As for science even if you can identify transitional fossils for evolution which are fairly contestable, humanists are going to have difficulty rationally explaining the point of creation. The best position I think a humanist like yourself can take, and a totally reasonable one at that, would be "I dont know". Probably would lead people to some gnostic stance at that point. Irreducible complexity is a fascinating look at natural selection, creation, evolution.

Im no science expert, I just no nothing cant create something with nothing and if you believe that your indeed a man of great faith!

Not wanting to wade into too much here, but “I don’t know” is pretty much on the money. We’ve got a rough idea when, and what it “looked” like, but we don’t know what caused it, if anything. We don’t know if anything came before it, if anything. And that’s ok.

What atheists and agnostics don’t do is fill in “I don’t know” with a god there is no evidence for. Aside from a big gap in a narrative. Hell, when asking questions like “what came before time”, that implies that time as a concept extends beyond our universe. To say that “nothing” can’t create a universe implies that the concept of existence has any meaning outside of our universe. For all we know it might be perfectly normal and expected for universes to burst into existence with absolutely no reason, because whatever exists externally to our universe does not have to follow the rules of our universe. So saying that because things aren’t created from nothing and the universe is no different doesn’t really follow.

Shit is crazy and possibly unknowable, filling in the gaps with a god that looks like us just seems lazy and self-aggrandising.

 

[Number37]

So I think we have different ideas of discussions. Reducing someones ability to unfurl the teaching of the richness of scriptures with simply a yes or a no to a series of questions is commical.

Sometimes prophets were mostly for kings, sometimes for people, one time to be the Christ. Hence if you don't know that, I think you might be overstating your knowledge of the bible a little bit.

We most certainly do have different ideas of discussion.

Straight out of the Puke school of discussion, "Don't tell me, I know boats".

 

[BloodySwan]

I know this is left of centre but reading this thread reminds me of one of the reasons I love AFL/sport. We're clearly all very different people with different upbringings and beliefs but we're all connected with our strong love of the Swans.

 

[Angry Red Bull]

The history and evolution of same sex orientation. Fascinating subject but many of the official views postulated are rubbish. Much of the theories seem to concentrate on the way in which homosexuality can be placed onto the Darwinian model of evolution. Homosexuals must exist for a reason such as to given rise to their creation. They then go on to try to elucidate what said reasons may be. First example is that they were created and evolved from a need of the extended family unit needing to support the procreators in that unit. I kid you not that is a theory. So help change nappies? lol Really? lol lost me at that point. It went downhill from there. Garbage.

I'm by no means an expert of Darwinian evolution but I suspect it operates thus. Example: a peak predator runs a certain speed say 20klm. It will therefore catch and kill all humans who run slower than that and those that run faster will survive. Over time the genes of those running faster being the only survivors will pass down through heredity so that eventually the species will have predominantly only those running that fast. Lock. How do same sex attraction fit that evolutionary theory? Why is there a need to postulate a reason for their existence at all? isn't it just possible that the genetic spectrum creates sufficient number of them say 3% so that there is no evolutionary response required at all? They will bubble along at 3% and be the genetic fluke they are without ever changing by evolution. Seems likely to me.

Clear evidence that homosexuals have existed since the dawn of time and seemingly have always been a minority. Lock that it has genetic source and not a environment based one. Interesting though that throughout history they have been treated differently based upon the social and cultural conventions of the time- sometimes acceptance sometimes not. Sometimes legal sometimes illegal. Sometimes oppression some times not. Sometimes persecution and punishment other times not.

Interesting perspective is the Roman Empire. The GFs gay son (the one some seem to think I invented) did a masters course with history major and he was enlightening me one day about the role of homosexual conduct in that society knowing of course he can talk openly with me and not be discriminated against.(the bird to bigoted arseholes who peddle otherwise). Apparently (and I quote his knowledge) the Romans were a class based system. Slaves and lower class existed and served the upper class. A feature of the era was also hedonism. I'm told that because of these two factors (class and hedonism) a practice developed where it became commonplace, acceptable even encouraged that upper class could and did call upon slaves/ lower class? to lift their toga and allow the upper class man to relieve themselves even in public. Lesbianism too. Bisexuality was a social norm then through social construct. Fascinating and probably demonstrates the important role of social construct at any time.

Where does that leave us? Genetically existed for as long as history and prescribed to minority ( because of genetic purpose dominance) and treated differently based upon social constructs along the path. Uncontroversial though I'm sure a few here will find some heterosexual subjugation goal in amongst all that lmao....simply because I espouse it.

Have to comment though omg the gays had a ball during Roman times unbeknownst to the ruling class who thought they were instead simply abusing power. Can't remove this image I have of a Roman officer in performing buggery on a gay slave and the gay slave trying to hide his utter pleasure a huge smirk on his face at being used in that way. lmao Yeah I know I know rape and non consenting ....got it. Bad Puke very bad puke. Get under the house

Question: Given that plastic didn't exist in Roman times and therefore the strap ons for lesbian were probably wood......anyone have concern about splinter removal? Ouuuuch!!! Ah it's only a slave. Make sure it's gone next time. That's minor though.....the real concern would be to be demanded to munch the carpet at THAT time of the month. Brrrrrrrrrrr.

 

[mtooler]

Not wanting to wade into too much here, but “I don’t know” is pretty much on the money. We’ve got a rough idea when, and what it “looked” like, but we don’t know what caused it, if anything. We don’t know if anything came before it, if anything. And that’s ok.

What atheists and agnostics don’t do is fill in “I don’t know” with a god there is no evidence for. Aside from a big gap in a narrative. Hell, when asking questions like “what came before time”, that implies that time as a concept extends beyond our universe. To say that “nothing” can’t create a universe implies that the concept of existence has any meaning outside of our universe. For all we know it might be perfectly normal and expected for universes to burst into existence with absolutely no reason, because whatever exists externally to our universe does not have to follow the rules of our universe. So saying that because things aren’t created from nothing and the universe is no different doesn’t really follow.

Shit is crazy and possibly unknowable, filling in the gaps with a god that looks like us just seems lazy and self-aggrandising.

Or looks like a rational explanation, there are also other explanations of which you've mentioned. The premise that nothing created something still requires a pretty strong faith for rational thinkers, it was what I couldn't deal with in my early 20s when seeking an answer to that question and ultimately led me to believe in some form of intelligent design with the universe being the way it is and it' creation.

 

[mtooler]

We most certainly do have different ideas of discussion.

Straight out of the Puke school of discussion, "Don't tell me, I know boats".

Sorry, I'm not going to get into a slanging match with anyone, it is childish. I gave you an explanation why a simple yes no answer is not suffice. For a discussion I'd focus on that part in particular. What is it that you want to know about prophets in particular?

 

[BarneyBent]

Or looks like a rational explanation, there are also other explanations of which you've mentioned. The premise that nothing created something still requires a pretty strong faith for rational thinkers, it was what I couldn't deal with in my early 20s when seeking an answer to that question and ultimately led me to believe in some form of intelligent design with the universe being the way it is and it' creation.

Doesn’t require any faith at all, I’m not making a claim to knowledge. I’m saying “I don’t know”, and have no reason to believe the Abrahamic god is the answer any more than a celestial teapot or spaghetti monster or unicorn or nothing at all.

We have absolutely no idea what is required to make a universe, we have no idea if causality is even a relevant concept - there’s in fact every reason to believe it’s not given how casuality is a function of space and time (which theoretically only came into existence at the Big Bang).

No spacetime, no causality. No causality, then nothing paradoxical about something happening without cause.

Do I know that causality didn’t exist pre-universe? Or that “pre-universe” is even a relevant concept (given I’m still applying a concept directly tied to time to something that may well exist entirely independent of time)? Course not. I just don’t see the need for a “Primary Cause” if there’s no reason to believe causality was a thing before the universe existed - there might be one but I’m not going to assume it.

 

[Angry Red Bull]

We most certainly do have different ideas of discussion.

Straight out of the Puke school of discussion, "Don't tell me, I know boats".

Happy always to 'discuss' anything on it's merits but when instead you get bigots wanting to persecute you for having a differing opinion well I tend to call a spade a spade and that applies to you mate. Ridiculing mtooler because he is religious. What were the words "why don't you piss off and get off the site preacher man" So what does use of the term preacher man in context imply? That the very reason you want him to 'piss off' in your words is because he is religious and that connotates on your belief system stupidity. Absolutely shameful. And you want to point the finger at me for wanting to preserve a tradition consistent to genetic purpose? lmao. I know what is infinitely more obscene and I won't hold back telling you so. And here's the sick part you weren't even the worse culprit in that bigotry. I now have a very clear view of character of those who visit here.

Omg you even tried to suggest through use if the word 'conveniently' that I might have been making up gay friends and gay prospective son in law. Do you honestly think I'm that insecure that I would concern myself with appearance? lol you don't know me then. You can line up 3M people all arguing the point and I'll never change opinion unless it's merited and intimdation and persecution doesn't merit it. They instead show the entrenched bigotry.

 

[BarneyBent]

Puke, what would constitute an argument with merit? What would we have to successfully dispute in order to change your mind? What would it take?

 

[mtooler]

Doesn’t require any faith at all, I’m not making a claim to knowledge. I’m saying “I don’t know”, and have no reason to believe the Abrahamic god is the answer any more than a celestial teapot or spaghetti monster or unicorn or nothing at all.

We have absolutely no idea what is required to make a universe, we have no idea if causality is even a relevant concept - there’s in fact every reason to believe it’s not given how casuality is a function of space and time (which theoretically only came into existence at the Big Bang).

No spacetime, no causality. No causality, then nothing paradoxical about something happening without cause.

Do I know that causality didn’t exist pre-universe? Or that “pre-universe” is even a relevant concept (given I’m still applying a concept directly tied to time to something that may well exist entirely independent of time)? Course not. I just don’t see the need for a “Primary Cause” if there’s no reason to believe causality was a thing before the universe existed - there might be one but I’m not going to assume it.

Fair enough, get what you're saying, sounds a little more like philosophy than science to me, because science is observable.

I'm not going to assume that there wasn't causality. An intelligent design is what the evidence points towards in my opinion, but each to their own.

 

[BarneyBent]

Fair enough, get what you're saying, sounds a little more like philosophy than science to me, because science is observable.

I'm not going to assume that there wasn't causality. An intelligent design is what the evidence points towards in my opinion, but each to their own.

I don’t disagree that it’s philosophy (though science is closing the gap, incidentally).

Again, I’m not assuming there wasn’t a casuality. I just don’t see any reason there need be one. And if there is a primary cause, what are the chances it a) is conscious, and b) has any relationship at all with humanity? Given how immensely vast the universe is, we are inconceivably tiny in comparison.

IF there was a primary cause, and IF that primary cause was conscious in any sense recognisable to us, and IF that primary cause cares at all about this universe, and IF that primary cause can interact and intervene in the universe, then you are still left with IF it is the least bit aware of humanity, IF it cares about humanity, and IF any of our religions are an accurate portrayal/understanding of that primary cause. And then, after all those big, big IFs, you have the question - is your one correct?

That is a lot of uncertainty. I’m pretty comfortable saying that on the balance of things, there’s probably no god in any traditional or meaningful sense that relates in any way to us. It’s possible, but only in the same way that it’s possible there’s an invisible, immaterial unicorn standing behind me as I type ready to gore me with its horn. Can’t prove otherwise, but is it really necessary to?

 

[Kummerspeck]

Interesting perspective is the Roman Empire. The GFs gay son (the one some seem to think I invented) did a masters course with history major and he was enlightening me one day about the role of homosexual conduct in that society knowing of course he can talk openly with me and not be discriminated against.(the bird to bigoted arseholes who peddle otherwise). Apparently (and I quote his knowledge) the Romans were a class based system. Slaves and lower class existed and served the upper class.

Why would someone studying masters feel uncomfortable talking openly to anyone about their subject field?

 

[Number37]

Happy always to 'discuss' anything on it's merits but when instead you get bigots wanting to persecute you for having a differing opinion well I tend to call a spade a spade and that applies to you mate. Ridiculing mtooler because he is religious. What were the words "why don't you piss off and get off the site preacher man" So what does use of the term preacher man in context imply? That the very reason you want him to 'piss off' in your words is because he is religious and that connotates on your belief system stupidity. Absolutely shameful. And you want to point the finger at me for wanting to preserve a tradition consistent to genetic purpose? lmao. I know what is infinitely more obscene and I won't hold back telling you so. And here's the sick part you weren't even the worse culprit in that bigotry. I now have a very clear view of character of those who visit here.

Omg you even tried to suggest through use if the word 'conveniently' that I might have been making up gay friends and gay prospective son in law. Do you honestly think I'm that insecure that I would concern myself with appearance? lol you don't know me then. You can line up 3M people all arguing the point and I'll never change opinion unless it's merited and intimdation and persecution doesn't merit it. They instead show the entrenched bigotry.

How many times are you going to double down on your nonsense?
You are clearly not interested in having a discussion.
I'd say stick to your day job, but dodgy tax advice shouldn't be encouraged.