These days an extremist is someone who refuses to vote for any of the big three if you judge by the like of flightpath and his ilk
That's a rather good definition actually - and as you say it is supported by quite a few on here.
It's maddening not to have a natural home in any party. My UK house is in a constituency that might well become a Con/UKIP marginal and so I'm struggling between two options that I'm not entirely keen on.
A good summary. Many diseases are of the multiple hit variety, with the gene that predisposes being triggered by one or more environmental trigger, with a dose of random bad luck in addition. Even obviously genetic conditions such as sickle cell are influenced by environment.
The gene/environment discussion reminds me of the ancient theological discussion on pre-destination and free will. Either has its advocates, but in practice people believe they have free will. Similarly with diseases there is little we can do with the genetic hand of cards that we are dealt, our only influence on our health is our own environments.
Indeed this is true. My own doctor has told me in a moment of weakness that given my family history that I shouldn't worry too much about pensions
Elderly gentleman: Yes? Me: Sorry to bother you! I'll be the Labour candidate in next... Elderly gentleman: You can stop right there. I have not voted Labour since that fellow Attlee got us in a mess.
That's an impressively long time to bear a grudge. He shut the door before I could find out what Clement had done wrong.
My father won't have the Observer in the house because of how they behaved over Suez...
My mother refuses to buy the Guardian, not forgiving them for leaving Manchester...
Ben Riley-Smith (@benrileysmith) 14/12/2014 22:24 Full 33-page document revealing Labour's secret Ukip strategy published here: bit.ly/1vPgWp3 pic.twitter.com/ijiZrz1kmn
This is the first time I've seen election campaign effects quantified.
"Of the relatively few studies that have attempted to quantify the effect of local campaigns, a change in intensity of the Labour Party’s local campaign from no campaigning to the average ‘campaign intensity’ was associated with an increase in our vote share of more than 5 percentage points, even when taking other local political factors in account.
Of particular relevance to this election, there is evidence that the benefits gained from campaigning are even larger for opposition parties than they are for incumbents."
Most of the document is fairly standard research/marketing that you'd expect any competent organisation to try to educate their salesforce about, but the quantification on that point was interesting, yes. Of course, if everyone's doing the same, it will largely cancel out, but the residual effect you note is intriguing.
Mr @ChokinVase - I really must ask - how does one pronounce your screen name and what does it refer to?
A Chokin vase was what I saw first when I looked up from my screen when I was trying to think up a username. Chokin is a type of Japanese engraving & then gilding. Pronounced as you'd read it.
(Chokin is also the word for savings/bank deposits, with chokinbako being the word for a "savings box" ie. piggybank. I don't yet know enough Japanese to say whether the etymology/kanji is the same as that used for the art or not, but I like the idea of a gilded piggybank!)
Inevitably Kerry Smith resigns as UKIP candidate for South Basildon and East Thurrock
Time for Neil Hamilton to save the day... ;-)
By the way (*tin foil hat at the read*) did Christine Hamilton's tweets over the last few days imply she knew this was coming...
...if so, why...?
Personally, Christine Hamilton should go for it, she'd be a great candidate/MP.
I agree. She comes across as a Good Egg.
Well I was prompted to try to find out, only to descover she was the face of British Sausage Week. And she did legally change her name to Mrs British Battleaxe, which lets face it makes her more appropriate indeed a shoo in as the Monster Raving Loony candidate, a party that lookes saner by the minute.
Elderly gentleman: Yes? Me: Sorry to bother you! I'll be the Labour candidate in next... Elderly gentleman: You can stop right there. I have not voted Labour since that fellow Attlee got us in a mess.
That's an impressively long time to bear a grudge. He shut the door before I could find out what Clement had done wrong.
My father won't have the Observer in the house because of how they behaved over Suez...
My mother refuses to buy the Guardian, not forgiving them for leaving Manchester...
Most of the document is fairly standard research/marketing that you'd expect any competent organisation to try to educate their salesforce about, but the quantification on that point was interesting, yes. Of course, if everyone's do the same, it will largely cancel out, but the residual effect you note is intriguing.
After the recent USA elections I came across a piece on the effect of campaign spending. Challengers apparently get a benefit from campaign spending that incumbents do not.
A good summary. Many diseases are of the multiple hit variety, with the gene that predisposes being triggered by one or more environmental trigger, with a dose of random bad luck in addition. Even obviously genetic conditions such as sickle cell are influenced by environment.
The gene/environment discussion reminds me of the ancient theological discussion on pre-destination and free will. Either has its advocates, but in practice people believe they have free will. Similarly with diseases there is little we can do with the genetic hand of cards that we are dealt, our only influence on our health is our own environments.
Thanks for the vote of confidence in the explanation. It was hard trying to condense it down into the word limit!
Yes, to put the theological spin on it, controlling environmental risk factors as much as possible to reduce excess risk beyond your genetic baseline is essentially like saying, "God helps those who help themselves".
At 9:29 this morning I delivered a leaflet to the home of Alex Haenow, brother of X Factor winner Ben Haenow.
Would it be fair to describe you as a stalker?
No. A substantial number (about 15) of local Conservative activists were delivering the leaflets to the three wards affected by the issue concerned, and it was purely by chance that the bundle allocated to me was for the Shrublands area of Shirley ward in Croydon which is where Ben and Alex Haenow happen to come from. (I also delivered more than 800 leaflets to households where Alex Haenow does *not* live).
Golly! She changed her name? It took me years to recover from changing mine when I got divorced - over a decade to stop being referred to my married incarnation.
I'd never have taken my husband's if I knew what a pain in the arse it was - and having an apostrophe in it just made it worse. I swear I must exist in about 20 different variations depending on the spelling of my name.
Inevitably Kerry Smith resigns as UKIP candidate for South Basildon and East Thurrock
Time for Neil Hamilton to save the day... ;-)
By the way (*tin foil hat at the read*) did Christine Hamilton's tweets over the last few days imply she knew this was coming...
...if so, why...?
Personally, Christine Hamilton should go for it, she'd be a great candidate/MP.
I agree. She comes across as a Good Egg.
Well I was prompted to try to find out, only to descover she was the face of British Sausage Week. And she did legally change her name to Mrs British Battleaxe, which lets face it makes her more appropriate indeed a shoo in as the Monster Raving Loony candidate, a party that lookes saner by the minute.
At 9:29 this morning I delivered a leaflet to the home of Alex Haenow, brother of X Factor winner Ben Haenow.
Would it be fair to describe you as a stalker?
No. A substantial number (about 15) of local Conservative activists were delivering the leaflets to the three wards affected by the issue concerned, and it was purely by chance that the bundle allocated to me was for the Shrublands area of Shirley ward in Croydon which is where Ben and Alex Haenow happen to come from. (I also delivered more than 800 leaflets to households where Alex Haenow does *not* live).
:-( And there I was thinking you were special. Disappointing.
A good summary. Many diseases are of the multiple hit variety, with the gene that predisposes being triggered by one or more environmental trigger, with a dose of random bad luck in addition. Even obviously genetic conditions such as sickle cell are influenced by environment.
The gene/environment discussion reminds me of the ancient theological discussion on pre-destination and free will. Either has its advocates, but in practice people believe they have free will. Similarly with diseases there is little we can do with the genetic hand of cards that we are dealt, our only influence on our health is our own environments.
Thanks for the vote of confidence in the explanation. It was hard trying to condense it down into the word limit!
Yes, to put the theological spin on it, controlling environmental risk factors as much as possible to reduce excess risk beyond your genetic baseline is essentially like saying, "God helps those who help themselves".
Golly! She changed her name? It took me years to recover from changing mine when I got divorced - over a decade to stop being referred to my married incarnation.
I'd never have taken my husband's if I knew what a pain in the arse it was - and having an apostrophe in it just made it worse. I swear I must exist in about 20 different variations depending on the spelling of my name.
Inevitably Kerry Smith resigns as UKIP candidate for South Basildon and East Thurrock
Time for Neil Hamilton to save the day... ;-)
By the way (*tin foil hat at the read*) did Christine Hamilton's tweets over the last few days imply she knew this was coming...
...if so, why...?
Personally, Christine Hamilton should go for it, she'd be a great candidate/MP.
I agree. She comes across as a Good Egg.
Well I was prompted to try to find out, only to descover she was the face of British Sausage Week. And she did legally change her name to Mrs British Battleaxe, which lets face it makes her more appropriate indeed a shoo in as the Monster Raving Loony candidate, a party that lookes saner by the minute.
At 9:29 this morning I delivered a leaflet to the home of Alex Haenow, brother of X Factor winner Ben Haenow.
Would it be fair to describe you as a stalker?
No. A substantial number (about 15) of local Conservative activists were delivering the leaflets to the three wards affected by the issue concerned, and it was purely by chance that the bundle allocated to me was for the Shrublands area of Shirley ward in Croydon which is where Ben and Alex Haenow happen to come from. (I also delivered more than 800 leaflets to households where Alex Haenow does *not* live).
:-( And there I was thinking you were special. Disappointing.
I did actually meet (i.e. come to within inches of) Alex Haenow on Tuesday, when he came to Ben Haenow's "homecoming" gig, and did a few selfies with people in the crowd. But I didn't realise who he was until afterwards. I was in the front row of the crowd, so I saw Ben Haenow (and his grandmother) and Simon Cowell from a distance of about 10 to 15 feet.
The fact you criticised me for calling people homophobes, but didn't get upset over someone called people chinkies or peasants, but you were quite rightly exercised by the Tories going for a dog whistle against Timur Aker.
Matthew 7:5
Now I'm off to watch Homeland, and I know you like to have the last word, as you're never wrong, knock yourself out.
Considering your anti-Catholicism on this site, it is ludicrous of you to try and claim the moral high ground on this issue.
Considering gay rights campaigners behaviour during the Papal Visit, it is even more ludicrous for them to.
The moral high ground is not determined by the Catholic church least of all when it institutionally puts the reputation of the church above the interests of abused children.
Further gay rights campaigners are entitled to protest in this country. The Pope might consider himself infallible but others beg to differ.
I am not the Catholic Church and I haven't abused any children. What made you think I represent the Catholic Church in any capacity whatsoever?
As for putting reputations above the interests of abused children, step forward Conservative, Labour and Liberal Democrat parties (Tim Fortescue, Rotherham, Rochdale/Cyril Smith).
Gay rights campaigners are NOT entitled to threatened visiting religious leaders with imprisonment, disrupt religious events and generally demonise fully 10% of the population of the UK.
You also know sod all about the doctrine of papal infallibility.
As an aside, I note you have this 'Jacobite nobleman' schtick. Considering James II (or whatever pretender you wish to stop at) was the last Catholic King of England, you are not only an anti-Catholic bigot, but a stupid one at that.
A good summary. Many diseases are of the multiple hit variety, with the gene that predisposes being triggered by one or more environmental trigger, with a dose of random bad luck in addition. Even obviously genetic conditions such as sickle cell are influenced by environment.
The gene/environment discussion reminds me of the ancient theological discussion on pre-destination and free will. Either has its advocates, but in practice people believe they have free will. Similarly with diseases there is little we can do with the genetic hand of cards that we are dealt, our only influence on our health is our own environments.
Thanks for the vote of confidence in the explanation. It was hard trying to condense it down into the word limit!
Yes, to put the theological spin on it, controlling environmental risk factors as much as possible to reduce excess risk beyond your genetic baseline is essentially like saying, "God helps those who help themselves".
It amuses me a little that people object very strongly to genetically modified tomatoes, but genetically modified people seem fine!
Ha!
The problem is that the general public's understanding of risk and probability is absolutely terrible. People swerve irrationally between the Precautionary and Wait-and-See principles, with little conception of the more realistic middle ground in most problems, not to mention the unsolvable, "wicked", nature of most real world problems. Accurate risk evaluation/assessment is next to non-existent. In fact, it gets laughed at for being indecipherable & needlessly obscure (viz. Donald Rumsfeld and his quite accurate desciption of the principles behind risk, regardless of what you think of his politics or eventual decisions).
In my more idle moments, I reflect that much be done to improve the country simply by requiring all adults to pass a mandatory exam on basic probability theory before allowing them to vote...
It amuses me a little that people object very strongly to genetically modified tomatoes, but genetically modified people seem fine!
Ha!
The problem is that the general public's understanding of risk and probability is absolutely terrible. People swerve irrationally between the Precautionary and Wait-and-See principles, with little conception of the more realistic middle ground in most problems, not to mention the unsolvable, "wicked", nature of most real world problems. Accurate risk evaluation/assessment is next to non-existent. In fact, it gets laughed at for being indecipherable & needlessly obscure (viz. Donald Rumsfeld and his quite accurate desciption of the principles behind risk, regardless of what you think of his politics or eventual decisions).
In my more idle moments, I reflect that much be done to improve the country simply by requiring all adults to pass a mandatory exam on basic probability theory before allowing them to vote...
The parties of power would never stand for that. People might learn their exposure to death by terrorism is slightly less than their chance of being killed by their own police force, or being struck by lightning. It might make people wonder what all these authoritarian laws of for
Which sulphates in cosmetics do you think are carcinogens on the scale of asbestos?
For the record, we don't always rip out asbestos of buildings. In most cases, as long as it isn't leaking out or major construction work isn't being done, the safest thing is to leave it unmoved, which is what usually happens.
-Please spare me the google search for articles (mostly from the industry) saying there are 'safe' levels and the risk is minimal. Let's just take that as read.
Post a peer reviewed article from a reputable source which says they aren't......
How can you possibly state a 'safe' level? SLS is an irritant -you can obviously say what concentration will literally burn through your skin, but you can't legislate how much people use, to what degree they rinse off, whether they're using a leave on cream with it in, whether other conditions will be exacerbated etc. etc. etc.
It amuses me a little that people object very strongly to genetically modified tomatoes, but genetically modified people seem fine!
Ha!
The problem is that the general public's understanding of risk and probability is absolutely terrible. People swerve irrationally between the Precautionary and Wait-and-See principles, with little conception of the more realistic middle ground in most problems, not to mention the unsolvable, "wicked", nature of most real world problems. Accurate risk evaluation/assessment is next to non-existent. In fact, it gets laughed at for being indecipherable & needlessly obscure (viz. Donald Rumsfeld and his quite accurate desciption of the principles behind risk, regardless of what you think of his politics or eventual decisions).
In my more idle moments, I reflect that much be done to improve the country simply by requiring all adults to pass a mandatory exam on basic probability theory before allowing them to vote...
The parties of power would never stand for that. People might learn their exposure to death by terrorism is slightly less than their chance of being killed by their own police force, or being struck by lightning. It might make people wonder what all these authoritarian laws of for
I wonder if there are annual death stats to justify a ban on face-sitting?
Sky reporting a reporter on scene stating up to 20 (public and employes) and also reported an Arabic type flag black with white writing being shown
Lindt chocolate cafe, St Martins place
Not good..... Where next?
Holy crap holy crap
Reporter channel 9 on scene
They have all the hostages have been placed in the windows facing outwards with hands on glass At least one Hostages is running her hand across her throat to indicate throat cut Calling this very serious incident
Channel 9 Sydney
Sydney opera house being evacuated incident being reported...... No further information at the moment but they apparently have shut down Sydney air space but airport still largely operational at the moment.
Ben Riley-Smith (@benrileysmith) 14/12/2014 22:24 Full 33-page document revealing Labour's secret Ukip strategy published here: bit.ly/1vPgWp3 pic.twitter.com/ijiZrz1kmn
This is the first time I've seen election campaign effects quantified.
"Of the relatively few studies that have attempted to quantify the effect of local campaigns, a change in intensity of the Labour Party’s local campaign from no campaigning to the average ‘campaign intensity’ was associated with an increase in our vote share of more than 5 percentage points, even when taking other local political factors in account.
Of particular relevance to this election, there is evidence that the benefits gained from campaigning are even larger for opposition parties than they are for incumbents."
Most of the document is fairly standard research/marketing that you'd expect any competent organisation to try to educate their salesforce about, but the quantification on that point was interesting, yes. Of course, if everyone's doing the same, it will largely cancel out, but the residual effect you note is intriguing.
Mr @ChokinVase - I really must ask - how does one pronounce your screen name and what does it refer to?
A Chokin vase was what I saw first when I looked up from my screen when I was trying to think up a username. Chokin is a type of Japanese engraving & then gilding. Pronounced as you'd read it.
(Chokin is also the word for savings/bank deposits, with chokinbako being the word for a "savings box" ie. piggybank. I don't yet know enough Japanese to say whether the etymology/kanji is the same as that used for the art or not, but I like the idea of a gilded piggybank!)
彫金 choukin (metal engraving- its a long o sound ちょうきん)
Unlike prevention, which is not lucrative to anyone -quite the opposite.
You do realise that the vaccine industry is vastly profitable?
And that much of the money in Alzheimer's research (including a few pennies of my own) is being spent in prevention.
I should have been more specific. Prevention through increased care over one's diet, cosmetics, environment etc. is not lucrative. The last thing Mr Corporation wants is for people to start reading the labels.
Well done for investing in Alzheimer's research by the way. It's what I would do if I had substantial funds to invest. It's the most important thing.
At 9:29 this morning I delivered a leaflet to the home of Alex Haenow, brother of X Factor winner Ben Haenow.
Would it be fair to describe you as a stalker?
No. A substantial number (about 15) of local Conservative activists were delivering the leaflets to the three wards affected by the issue concerned, and it was purely by chance that the bundle allocated to me was for the Shrublands area of Shirley ward in Croydon which is where Ben and Alex Haenow happen to come from. (I also delivered more than 800 leaflets to households where Alex Haenow does *not* live).
:-( And there I was thinking you were special. Disappointing.
I did actually meet (i.e. come to within inches of) Alex Haenow on Tuesday, when he came to Ben Haenow's "homecoming" gig, and did a few selfies with people in the crowd. But I didn't realise who he was until afterwards. I was in the front row of the crowd, so I saw Ben Haenow (and his grandmother) and Simon Cowell from a distance of about 10 to 15 feet.
I was recently about 7 feet from Prince Harry. I was driving out of an underground car park in Mayfair and his black Range Rover was directly in front of me, with him in the nearside passenge seat.
It amuses me a little that people object very strongly to genetically modified tomatoes, but genetically modified people seem fine!
Ha!
The problem is that the general public's understanding of risk and probability is absolutely terrible. People swerve irrationally between the Precautionary and Wait-and-See principles, with little conception of the more realistic middle ground in most problems, not to mention the unsolvable, "wicked", nature of most real world problems. Accurate risk evaluation/assessment is next to non-existent. In fact, it gets laughed at for being indecipherable & needlessly obscure (viz. Donald Rumsfeld and his quite accurate desciption of the principles behind risk, regardless of what you think of his politics or eventual decisions).
In my more idle moments, I reflect that much be done to improve the country simply by requiring all adults to pass a mandatory exam on basic probability theory before allowing them to vote...
The parties of power would never stand for that. People might learn their exposure to death by terrorism is slightly less than their chance of being killed by their own police force, or being struck by lightning. It might make people wonder what all these authoritarian laws of for
I wonder if there are annual death stats to justify a ban on face-sitting?
If a government seriously wanted to reduce the death of their people then it would be best to mandate speed monitors and dashboard cams in every car. That would cut more unneccesary deaths per year than all the anti terror legislation or anti porn legislation that could ever exist in a tory wet dream.....They don't however do it
Golly! She changed her name? It took me years to recover from changing mine when I got divorced - over a decade to stop being referred to my married incarnation.
I'd never have taken my husband's if I knew what a pain in the arse it was - and having an apostrophe in it just made it worse. I swear I must exist in about 20 different variations depending on the spelling of my name.
Inevitably Kerry Smith resigns as UKIP candidate for South Basildon and East Thurrock
Time for Neil Hamilton to save the day... ;-)
By the way (*tin foil hat at the read*) did Christine Hamilton's tweets over the last few days imply she knew this was coming...
...if so, why...?
Personally, Christine Hamilton should go for it, she'd be a great candidate/MP.
I agree. She comes across as a Good Egg.
Well I was prompted to try to find out, only to descover she was the face of British Sausage Week. And she did legally change her name to Mrs British Battleaxe, which lets face it makes her more appropriate indeed a shoo in as the Monster Raving Loony candidate, a party that lookes saner by the minute.
Elderly gentleman: Yes? Me: Sorry to bother you! I'll be the Labour candidate in next... Elderly gentleman: You can stop right there. I have not voted Labour since that fellow Attlee got us in a mess.
Which sulphates in cosmetics do you think are carcinogens on the scale of asbestos?
For the record, we don't always rip out asbestos of buildings. In most cases, as long as it isn't leaking out or major construction work isn't being done, the safest thing is to leave it unmoved, which is what usually happens.
-Please spare me the google search for articles (mostly from the industry) saying there are 'safe' levels and the risk is minimal. Let's just take that as read.
Post a peer reviewed article from a reputable source which says they aren't......
How can you possibly state a 'safe' level? SLS is an irritant -you can obviously say what concentration will literally burn through your skin, but you can't legislate how much people use, to what degree they rinse off, whether they're using a leave on cream with it in, whether other conditions will be exacerbated etc. etc. etc.
SLS as in sodium lauryl sulphate or sodium dodecyl sulphate? like the stuff that is in every single shampoo and has been the last few decades or so (some toothpastes,too)? In my experience, if it's in solution, it's not going to give you too much trouble. as a powder, certainly irritating. As for anything, though, toxicity is always about dose. Hence those kids dying of water poisoning after taking ecstasy and dancing too much. The LD50 for sodium chloride is about 3-4g per kilo of bodyweight...
Local radio station reporting that the hostage takers are stating they have "devices all over the city" and they demand to "talk to the Prime Minister live on radio"
Sydney opera house evacuated due to possible suspicious package (could of course just be precautionary as everyone is nervous for obvious reasons.
Which sulphates in cosmetics do you think are carcinogens on the scale of asbestos?
For the record, we don't always rip out asbestos of buildings. In most cases, as long as it isn't leaking out or major construction work isn't being done, the safest thing is to leave it unmoved, which is what usually happens.
-Please spare me the google search for articles (mostly from the industry) saying there are 'safe' levels and the risk is minimal. Let's just take that as read.
Post a peer reviewed article from a reputable source which says they aren't......
How can you possibly state a 'safe' level? SLS is an irritant -you can obviously say what concentration will literally burn through your skin, but you can't legislate how much people use, to what degree they rinse off, whether they're using a leave on cream with it in, whether other conditions will be exacerbated etc. etc. etc.
The SLS myth is propagated by people trying to sell 'SLS Free' products to the credulous.......
In my more idle moments, I reflect that much be done to improve the country simply by requiring all adults to pass a mandatory exam on basic probability theory before allowing them to vote...
The parties of power would never stand for that. People might learn their exposure to death by terrorism is slightly less than their chance of being killed by their own police force, or being struck by lightning. It might make people wonder what all these authoritarian laws of for
You won't get argument from me on that point. I'd only add that most of the parties in power are just as hopeless at understanding all this as the rest of the population, and are as much led and leaders in shaping public opinion.
PS the lightning risk is actually orders of magnitude more likely than the terrorist attack. Of course, comparing risks depends on the set being considered, so there will be variation, but in principle...
How can you possibly state a 'safe' level? SLS is an irritant -you can obviously say what concentration will literally burn through your skin, but you can't legislate how much people use, to what degree they rinse off, whether they're using a leave on cream with it in, whether other conditions will be exacerbated etc. etc. etc.
There are many ways of defining a safe level, depending on what risk you want to measure and how you want to define safety. They're nearly all probabilistic in nature, to reflect the points you raise. I know that sounds like a facile answer, but it's the truth. The obvious silly-but-true example: water is lethal. It just depends on what you do with it and how much of it you use.
To be even more facile, if the overall harm from SLS to the population from carcinogenic effects is lower than the overall benefit to the population derived from the joy of luxuriating in those rich, soapy suds, then it's a justifiable risk. The data to date isn't all-encompassing but broadly seems to support a low, though perhaps not zero, risk from SLS, so that facile statement might actually be entirely true.
Of course, in an ideal world, people would be sufficiently educated to make that judgement for themselves in a genuinely informed manner (and therefore create a market for an alternative, if sufficient numbers were prepared to sacrifice the lather) but, well...
The saddest part about all this discussion is that humanity - especially in the UK - has more access to free high-quality information about risk than ever before but most people haven't been taught how to interpret it in a balanced/rational way.
Ultimately, I think political philosophy comes down to a simple choice : does the government and the state exist at the behest of individuals, or the other way around.
Strong statists see the government as bestowing rights on individuals. Libertarians see it the other way around.
Nah.
You can have people take the same principles and have them end up in very different final positions.
Which sulphates in cosmetics do you think are carcinogens on the scale of asbestos?
For the record, we don't always rip out asbestos of buildings. In most cases, as long as it isn't leaking out or major construction work isn't being done, the safest thing is to leave it unmoved, which is what usually happens.
-Please spare me the google search for articles (mostly from the industry) saying there are 'safe' levels and the risk is minimal. Let's just take that as read.
Post a peer reviewed article from a reputable source which says they aren't......
How can you possibly state a 'safe' level? SLS is an irritant -you can obviously say what concentration will literally burn through your skin, but you can't legislate how much people use, to what degree they rinse off, whether they're using a leave on cream with it in, whether other conditions will be exacerbated etc. etc. etc.
SLS as in sodium lauryl sulphate or sodium dodecyl sulphate? like the stuff that is in every single shampoo and has been the last few decades or so (some toothpastes,too)? In my experience, if it's in solution, it's not going to give you too much trouble. as a powder, certainly irritating. As for anything, though, toxicity is always about dose. Hence those kids dying of water poisoning after taking ecstasy and dancing too much. The LD50 for sodium chloride is about 3-4g per kilo of bodyweight...
Yes, that stuff. It's a crude degreaser. Of course it won't give you 'too much trouble' as in you won't conk out from shampoo poisoning, but it is known to penetrate the skin and mimic oestrogen, make the skin thinner over the long term, and break down the proteins from which the skin is formed. Don't get me wrong, I don't bathe in olive oil or avoid deodorant - I shower twice a day; my desire to be clean and smell nice is greater than my fear of the health consequences -but I would like more 'healthy' options to be available just as there are organic foods, for just a moderately higher sum than non-organic. Give people the information, and let the market take care of the rest. Instead, the beauty industry does all these silly science bits and tells you it's all 'vitamin enriched' whilst actually it's a small pot of death.
UKIP were entirely right to be circumspect, and I'm not sure why you would expect the party to reflect your personal hobby horses as opposed to the view of the majority of its membership.
No public support for same-sex marriage eh?
People have been generally more in favour of it than opposed to it, usually a majority.
Anecdote vs Polling evidence
55% of the voters supported same sex marriage in May 2013
In my more idle moments, I reflect that much be done to improve the country simply by requiring all adults to pass a mandatory exam on basic probability theory before allowing them to vote...
The parties of power would never stand for that. People might learn their exposure to death by terrorism is slightly less than their chance of being killed by their own police force, or being struck by lightning. It might make people wonder what all these authoritarian laws of for
You won't get argument from me on that point. I'd only add that most of the parties in power are just as hopeless at understanding all this as the rest of the population, and are as much led and leaders in shaping public opinion.
PS the lightning risk is actually orders of magnitude more likely than the terrorist attack. Of course, comparing risks depends on the set being considered, so there will be variation, but in principle...
The parties in power understand this very well imo. They are only interested in the death of citizens when it enables them to push for more control over those people
Politicians are not there to be leaders they are there to enact the will of the people that elected them and the sooner they learn to do what they are told the better
Ultimately, I think political philosophy comes down to a simple choice : does the government and the state exist at the behest of individuals, or the other way around.
Strong statists see the government as bestowing rights on individuals. Libertarians see it the other way around.
Nah.
You can have people take the same principles and have them end up in very different final positions.
It is, as they say, complicated.
It is complicated to you because you approach it from a Statist viewpoint.
It's in your *interests* to complicate that which is very straightforward.
Ultimately, I think political philosophy comes down to a simple choice : does the government and the state exist at the behest of individuals, or the other way around.
Strong statists see the government as bestowing rights on individuals. Libertarians see it the other way around.
Nah.
You can have people take the same principles and have them end up in very different final positions.
It is, as they say, complicated.
It is complicated to you because you approach it from a Statist viewpoint.
It's in your *interests* to complicate that which is very straightforward.
Saying political philosophy can get complicated is a statist viewpoint?
Ultimately, I think political philosophy comes down to a simple choice : does the government and the state exist at the behest of individuals, or the other way around.
Strong statists see the government as bestowing rights on individuals. Libertarians see it the other way around.
Nah.
You can have people take the same principles and have them end up in very different final positions.
It is, as they say, complicated.
It is complicated to you because you approach it from a Statist viewpoint.
It's in your *interests* to complicate that which is very straightforward.
Saying political philosophy can get complicated is a statist viewpoint?
No. You say that libertarianism is complicated. As you are a Statist that does not surprise me. That is all.
Ultimately, I think political philosophy comes down to a simple choice : does the government and the state exist at the behest of individuals, or the other way around.
Strong statists see the government as bestowing rights on individuals. Libertarians see it the other way around.
Nah.
You can have people take the same principles and have them end up in very different final positions.
It is, as they say, complicated.
It is complicated to you because you approach it from a Statist viewpoint.
It's in your *interests* to complicate that which is very straightforward.
Saying political philosophy can get complicated is a statist viewpoint?
Even talking about political philosophy is the wrong viewpoint.
I keep getting told on here we are a representative democracy
When most mp's fail to represent their constituents but represent their party line instead then that is no longer representative democracy that is vote for someone who claims he understands you until it is inconvenient for working his way up the greasy pole of cabinet hood
Which sulphates in cosmetics do you think are carcinogens on the scale of asbestos?
For the record, we don't always rip out asbestos of buildings. In most cases, as long as it isn't leaking out or major construction work isn't being done, the safest thing is to leave it unmoved, which is what usually happens.
-Please spare me the google search for articles (mostly from the industry) saying there are 'safe' levels and the risk is minimal. Let's just take that as read.
Post a peer reviewed article from a reputable source which says they aren't......
How can you possibly state a 'safe' level? SLS is an irritant -you can obviously say what concentration will literally burn through your skin, but you can't legislate how much people use, to what degree they rinse off, whether they're using a leave on cream with it in, whether other conditions will be exacerbated etc. etc. etc.
The SLS myth is propagated by people trying to sell 'SLS Free' products to the credulous.......
*Sigh* Like most b*ll*cks 'debunkings', this one takes one aspect of the argument against this chemical, casts doubt on that one aspect, and uses that to conclude that there's nothing to see here, everyone move along. etc. The disputed connection with nitrosamines is this one aspect. This has nothing to do with SLS's status as a hormone disruptor (which can be a pre-cursor to breast and other cancers). It has nothing to do with the very mechanism by which SLSs remove grease from your skin breaking down its proteins (which can be a pre-cursor to skin cancer). They can't even be that confident themselves if they're covering their arse using 'significant' in the title.
For instance Edinburgh South has Labour with a very narrow lead over the LIB DEMs - which is irrelevant to the SNP's correct odds there.
I beleieve Edinburgh South is safer than polls suggest - Ian Murray will get a lot of support for his (continuing) efforts in saving Heart of Midlothian Football Club from its locally numerous and mainly left of centre supporters
Representative democracy these days in this country is like
Walking into a chinese restaurant and being told you can't order what you like you can only order set meal A or set meal B, however we reserve the right to change what is set meal A or B after you have ordered and the chef's might have a discussion and give you a previously unplanned set meal C instead.
Most of us would turn round and walk out as we had come in for a particular combination of dishes that we liked not to be fobbed off with what the chef wanted to give us
For instance Edinburgh South has Labour with a very narrow lead over the LIB DEMs - which is irrelevant to the SNP's correct odds there.
I beleieve Edinburgh South is safer than polls suggest - Ian Murray will get a lot of support for his (continuing) efforts in saving Heart of Midlothian Football Club from its locally numerous and mainly left of centre supporters
That list is simply Labour seats listed by vulnerability to any party. My target list is specifically SNP targets.
Which sulphates in cosmetics do you think are carcinogens on the scale of asbestos?
For the record, we don't always rip out asbestos of buildings. In most cases, as long as it isn't leaking out or major construction work isn't being done, the safest thing is to leave it unmoved, which is what usually happens.
-Please spare me the google search for articles (mostly from the industry) saying there are 'safe' levels and the risk is minimal. Let's just take that as read.
Post a peer reviewed article from a reputable source which says they aren't......
How can you possibly state a 'safe' level? SLS is an irritant -you can obviously say what concentration will literally burn through your skin, but you can't legislate how much people use, to what degree they rinse off, whether they're using a leave on cream with it in, whether other conditions will be exacerbated etc. etc. etc.
SLS as in sodium lauryl sulphate or sodium dodecyl sulphate? like the stuff that is in every single shampoo and has been the last few decades or so (some toothpastes,too)? In my experience, if it's in solution, it's not going to give you too much trouble. as a powder, certainly irritating. As for anything, though, toxicity is always about dose. Hence those kids dying of water poisoning after taking ecstasy and dancing too much. The LD50 for sodium chloride is about 3-4g per kilo of bodyweight...
Yes, that stuff. It's a crude degreaser. Of course it won't give you 'too much trouble' as in you won't conk out from shampoo poisoning, but it is known to penetrate the skin and mimic oestrogen, make the skin thinner over the long term, and break down the proteins from which the skin is formed. Don't get me wrong, I don't bathe in olive oil or avoid deodorant - I shower twice a day; my desire to be clean and smell nice is greater than my fear of the health consequences -but I would like more 'healthy' options to be available just as there are organic foods, for just a moderately higher sum than non-organic. Give people the information, and let the market take care of the rest. Instead, the beauty industry does all these silly science bits and tells you it's all 'vitamin enriched' whilst actually it's a small pot of death.
well I guess "crude degreasing" is what many of us want in a soap/shampoo/cleaning product. I guess the question is: What would you like to replace SLS with and what are the risks associated with that (or with less effective degreasing)?
A Chokin vase was what I saw first when I looked up from my screen when I was trying to think up a username. Chokin is a type of Japanese engraving & then gilding. Pronounced as you'd read it.
(Chokin is also the word for savings/bank deposits, with chokinbako being the word for a "savings box" ie. piggybank. I don't yet know enough Japanese to say whether the etymology/kanji is the same as that used for the art or not, but I like the idea of a gilded piggybank!)
彫金 choukin (metal engraving- its a long o sound ちょうきん)
貯金 chokin (bank savings - short o sound ちょきん )
the kin is metal/gold in both cases
Are you in Japan, Chokin-san?
Thank you so much for the kanji! I can read hiragana (and katakana) if I take them slowly, but kanji remains a very distant prospect... but I recognise the kin from Kinyoubi/Friday. I remember that kanji becuase the shape sort of looks like the Kinkaku-ji golden temple...
I've only been learning Japanese for a very short time, so I'm still at a basic level. Slowly getting better though; it's a really fascinating language to conceptualise.
I'm not in Japan now, but I worked there briefly, many years ago, and have retained an affection for the country and its people. Never really learnt the language properly back then, which I've always regretted, and now that I have more time I'm trying to rectify that mistake! Thank you for the short lesson.
BTW, do you know of any good sources for reading simple Japanese stories or articles either in hiragana or (faster at my current stage) romaji. Preferably not too much slang, so I suppose most manga is out. I want to get more familiarity with the written language by exposure, but it's extremely difficult to find non-kanji text.
Labour MPs have been secretly ordered not to campaign on immigration because doing so could cost them the next election, the Daily Telegraph can reveal.
A private strategy document circulated by Labour HQ and seen by this newspaper warns that the bigger immigration becomes as a campaign issue the more votes the party will lose.
MPs are told to focus on "moving the conversation on" if voters express concerns about border controls to topics Labour is stronger on such as healthcare or housing.
They are also urged not to send leaflets on immigration to all voters because it could be "unhelpful" and "risks undermining the broad coalition of support we need to return to government".
The revelations are a major embarrassment for Ed Miliband, who is expected tell voters Labour understands their immigration concerns and harden the party's stance on cheap foreign workers in a major speech on Monday.
Ultimately, I think political philosophy comes down to a simple choice : does the government and the state exist at the behest of individuals, or the other way around.
Strong statists see the government as bestowing rights on individuals. Libertarians see it the other way around.
Nah.
You can have people take the same principles and have them end up in very different final positions.
It is, as they say, complicated.
It is complicated to you because you approach it from a Statist viewpoint.
It's in your *interests* to complicate that which is very straightforward.
Saying political philosophy can get complicated is a statist viewpoint?
No. You say that libertarianism is complicated. As you are a Statist that does not surprise me. That is all.
Go read back again then. RCS1000 made a point about political philosophy that I was responding to.
Ultimately, I think political philosophy comes down to a simple choice : does the government and the state exist at the behest of individuals, or the other way around.
Strong statists see the government as bestowing rights on individuals. Libertarians see it the other way around.
Nah.
You can have people take the same principles and have them end up in very different final positions.
It is, as they say, complicated.
It is complicated to you because you approach it from a Statist viewpoint.
It's in your *interests* to complicate that which is very straightforward.
Saying political philosophy can get complicated is a statist viewpoint?
Even talking about political philosophy is the wrong viewpoint.
I keep getting told on here we are a representative democracy
When most mp's fail to represent their constituents but represent their party line instead then that is no longer representative democracy that is vote for someone who claims he understands you until it is inconvenient for working his way up the greasy pole of cabinet hood
People largely vote for MPs as representatives of the party they are members of.
Ultimately, I think political philosophy comes down to a simple choice : does the government and the state exist at the behest of individuals, or the other way around.
Strong statists see the government as bestowing rights on individuals. Libertarians see it the other way around.
Nah.
You can have people take the same principles and have them end up in very different final positions.
It is, as they say, complicated.
It is complicated to you because you approach it from a Statist viewpoint.
It's in your *interests* to complicate that which is very straightforward.
Saying political philosophy can get complicated is a statist viewpoint?
Even talking about political philosophy is the wrong viewpoint.
I keep getting told on here we are a representative democracy
When most mp's fail to represent their constituents but represent their party line instead then that is no longer representative democracy that is vote for someone who claims he understands you until it is inconvenient for working his way up the greasy pole of cabinet hood
People largely vote for MPs as representatives of the party they are members of.
A Chokin vase was what I saw first when I looked up from my screen when I was trying to think up a username. Chokin is a type of Japanese engraving & then gilding. Pronounced as you'd read it.
(Chokin is also the word for savings/bank deposits, with chokinbako being the word for a "savings box" ie. piggybank. I don't yet know enough Japanese to say whether the etymology/kanji is the same as that used for the art or not, but I like the idea of a gilded piggybank!)
彫金 choukin (metal engraving- its a long o sound ちょうきん)
貯金 chokin (bank savings - short o sound ちょきん )
the kin is metal/gold in both cases
Are you in Japan, Chokin-san?
Thank you so much for the kanji! I can read hiragana (and katakana) if I take them slowly, but kanji remains a very distant prospect... but I recognise the kin from Kinyoubi/Friday. I remember that kanji becuase the shape sort of looks like the Kinkaku-ji golden temple...
I've only been learning Japanese for a very short time, so I'm still at a basic level. Slowly getting better though; it's a really fascinating language to conceptualise.
I'm not in Japan now, but I worked there briefly, many years ago, and have retained an affection for the country and its people. Never really learnt the language properly back then, which I've always regretted, and now that I have more time I'm trying to rectify that mistake! Thank you for the short lesson.
BTW, do you know of any good sources for reading simple Japanese stories or articles either in hiragana or (faster for at at my current stage) romaji. Preferably not too much slang, so I suppose most manga is out. I want to get more familiarity with the written language by exposure, but it's extremely difficult to find non-kanji text.
This is quite a good way- hover your mouse over the kanji and it pops up readings and definitions. That way you can attempt anything you like on a web page
Ultimately, I think political philosophy comes down to a simple choice : does the government and the state exist at the behest of individuals, or the other way around.
Strong statists see the government as bestowing rights on individuals. Libertarians see it the other way around.
Nah.
You can have people take the same principles and have them end up in very different final positions.
It is, as they say, complicated.
It is complicated to you because you approach it from a Statist viewpoint.
It's in your *interests* to complicate that which is very straightforward.
Saying political philosophy can get complicated is a statist viewpoint?
Even talking about political philosophy is the wrong viewpoint.
I keep getting told on here we are a representative democracy
When most mp's fail to represent their constituents but represent their party line instead then that is no longer representative democracy that is vote for someone who claims he understands you until it is inconvenient for working his way up the greasy pole of cabinet hood
People largely vote for MPs as representatives of the party they are members of.
See my follow up on representative democracy
Representative democracy was once a necessary evil....now its just an evil
Ultimately, I think political philosophy comes down to a simple choice : does the government and the state exist at the behest of individuals, or the other way around.
Strong statists see the government as bestowing rights on individuals. Libertarians see it the other way around.
Nah.
You can have people take the same principles and have them end up in very different final positions.
It is, as they say, complicated.
It is complicated to you because you approach it from a Statist viewpoint.
It's in your *interests* to complicate that which is very straightforward.
Saying political philosophy can get complicated is a statist viewpoint?
Even talking about political philosophy is the wrong viewpoint.
I keep getting told on here we are a representative democracy
When most mp's fail to represent their constituents but represent their party line instead then that is no longer representative democracy that is vote for someone who claims he understands you until it is inconvenient for working his way up the greasy pole of cabinet hood
People largely vote for MPs as representatives of the party they are members of.
See my follow up on representative democracy
If you want to use that analogy (which adds a bit of drama by ignoring the spectrum nature of politics) then you should back out a bit. It's a choice of restaurants where if you don't like what is on their menus you can make something yourself, and see if you can persuade anyone else to eat it.
Elderly gentleman: Yes? Me: Sorry to bother you! I'll be the Labour candidate in next... Elderly gentleman: You can stop right there. I have not voted Labour since that fellow Attlee got us in a mess.
That's an impressively long time to bear a grudge. He shut the door before I could find out what Clement had done wrong.
Ultimately, I think political philosophy comes down to a simple choice : does the government and the state exist at the behest of individuals, or the other way around.
Strong statists see the government as bestowing rights on individuals. Libertarians see it the other way around.
Nah.
You can have people take the same principles and have them end up in very different final positions.
It is, as they say, complicated.
It is complicated to you because you approach it from a Statist viewpoint.
It's in your *interests* to complicate that which is very straightforward.
Saying political philosophy can get complicated is a statist viewpoint?
No. You say that libertarianism is complicated. As you are a Statist that does not surprise me. That is all.
Go read back again then. RCS1000 made a point about political philosophy that I was responding to.
Okay. As I'm in the quote thread and RCS1k isn't you'll have to excuse me for not guessing that you were answering someone else entirely about something completely different.
Ultimately, I think political philosophy comes down to a simple choice : does the government and the state exist at the behest of individuals, or the other way around.
Strong statists see the government as bestowing rights on individuals. Libertarians see it the other way around.
Nah.
You can have people take the same principles and have them end up in very different final positions.
It is, as they say, complicated.
It is complicated to you because you approach it from a Statist viewpoint.
It's in your *interests* to complicate that which is very straightforward.
Saying political philosophy can get complicated is a statist viewpoint?
No. You say that libertarianism is complicated. As you are a Statist that does not surprise me. That is all.
Go read back again then. RCS1000 made a point about political philosophy that I was responding to.
Okay. As I'm in the quote thread and RCS1k isn't you'll have to excuse me for not guessing that you were answering someone else entirely about something completely different.
What?
RCS1k is in the quote thread and it was his post I quoted and responded to.
A Chokin vase was what I saw first when I looked up from my screen when I was trying to think up a username. Chokin is a type of Japanese engraving & then gilding. Pronounced as you'd read it.
(Chokin is also the word for savings/bank deposits, with chokinbako being the word for a "savings box" ie. piggybank. I don't yet know enough Japanese to say whether the etymology/kanji is the same as that used for the art or not, but I like the idea of a gilded piggybank!)
彫金 choukin (metal engraving- its a long o sound ちょうきん)
貯金 chokin (bank savings - short o sound ちょきん )
the kin is metal/gold in both cases
Are you in Japan, Chokin-san?
Thank you so much for the kanji! I can read hiragana (and katakana) if I take them slowly, but kanji remains a very distant prospect... but I recognise the kin from Kinyoubi/Friday. I remember that kanji becuase the shape sort of looks like the Kinkaku-ji golden temple...
I've only been learning Japanese for a very short time, so I'm still at a basic level. Slowly getting better though; it's a really fascinating language to conceptualise.
I'm not in Japan now, but I worked there briefly, many years ago, and have retained an affection for the country and its people. Never really learnt the language properly back then, which I've always regretted, and now that I have more time I'm trying to rectify that mistake! Thank you for the short lesson.
BTW, do you know of any good sources for reading simple Japanese stories or articles either in hiragana or (faster for at at my current stage) romaji. Preferably not too much slang, so I suppose most manga is out. I want to get more familiarity with the written language by exposure, but it's extremely difficult to find non-kanji text.
This is quite a good way- hover your mouse over the kanji and it pops up readings and definitions. That way you can attempt anything you like on a web page
Ultimately, I think political philosophy comes down to a simple choice : does the government and the state exist at the behest of individuals, or the other way around.
Strong statists see the government as bestowing rights on individuals. Libertarians see it the other way around.
Nah.
You can have people take the same principles and have them end up in very different final positions.
It is, as they say, complicated.
It is complicated to you because you approach it from a Statist viewpoint.
It's in your *interests* to complicate that which is very straightforward.
Saying political philosophy can get complicated is a statist viewpoint?
Even talking about political philosophy is the wrong viewpoint.
I keep getting told on here we are a representative democracy
When most mp's fail to represent their constituents but represent their party line instead then that is no longer representative democracy that is vote for someone who claims he understands you until it is inconvenient for working his way up the greasy pole of cabinet hood
People largely vote for MPs as representatives of the party they are members of.
See my follow up on representative democracy
If you want to use that analogy (which adds a bit of drama by ignoring the spectrum nature of politics) then you should back out a bit. It's a choice of restaurants where if you don't like what is on their menus you can make something yourself, and see if you can persuade anyone else to eat it.
In politics however you haven't really got a choice of restaurants to eat at there are only two currently.
Which of these statements do you disagree with
1) Politicians are servants of those that elected them 2) Politicians should represent the views of those that elected them 3) Politicians should represent the views of their party even if they know it is not what the people who elected them want 4) Politicians should be able to decide what they were elected to do after the votes are counted.
Personally myself I think 1 and 2 are good. Currently however only 3 and 4 apply
Direct democracy on most issues is the only way forward. Leave parliament to be a rump deciding merely on those emergency issues in our name. Probably 200 should do. Elect an executive where we vote on each policy individually with that policy costed. If I think Gove is right on education, and Cable is right on business (not saying these are my views) I should be able to cast a vote on both issues. I shouldnt have to pick menu A or menu B where I am going to find some of the dishes are ones that will make me vomit.
Ultimately, I think political philosophy comes down to a simple choice : does the government and the state exist at the behest of individuals, or the other way around.
Strong statists see the government as bestowing rights on individuals. Libertarians see it the other way around.
Nah.
You can have people take the same principles and have them end up in very different final positions.
It is, as they say, complicated.
It is complicated to you because you approach it from a Statist viewpoint.
It's in your *interests* to complicate that which is very straightforward.
Saying political philosophy can get complicated is a statist viewpoint?
Even talking about political philosophy is the wrong viewpoint.
I keep getting told on here we are a representative democracy
When most mp's fail to represent their constituents but represent their party line instead then that is no longer representative democracy that is vote for someone who claims he understands you until it is inconvenient for working his way up the greasy pole of cabinet hood
People largely vote for MPs as representatives of the party they are members of.
See my follow up on representative democracy
If you want to use that analogy (which adds a bit of drama by ignoring the spectrum nature of politics) then you should back out a bit. It's a choice of restaurants where if you don't like what is on their menus you can make something yourself, and see if you can persuade anyone else to eat it.
In politics however you haven't really got a choice of restaurants to eat at there are only two currently.
Which of these statements do you disagree with
1) Politicians are servants of those that elected them 2) Politicians should represent the views of those that elected them 3) Politicians should represent the views of their party even if they know it is not what the people who elected them want 4) Politicians should be able to decide what they were elected to do after the votes are counted.
Personally myself I think 1 and 2 are good. Currently however only 3 and 4 apply
I think when people elect Joe Blogg - Conservative more of them do so about the second part than the first.
Obviously grey areas, balance to be struck etc etc in terms of levels of rebelliousness.
Which sulphates in cosmetics do you think are carcinogens on the scale of asbestos?
For the record, we don't always rip out asbestos of buildings. In most cases, as long as it isn't leaking out or major construction work isn't being done, the safest thing is to leave it unmoved, which is what usually happens.
-Please spare me the google search for articles (mostly from the industry) saying there are 'safe' levels and the risk is minimal. Let's just take that as read.
Post a peer reviewed article from a reputable source which says they aren't......
How can you possibly state a 'safe' level? SLS is an irritant -you can obviously say what concentration will literally burn through your skin, but you can't legislate how much people use, to what degree they rinse off, whether they're using a leave on cream with it in, whether other conditions will be exacerbated etc. etc. etc.
The SLS myth is propagated by people trying to sell 'SLS Free' products to the credulous.......
Ultimately, I think political philosophy comes down to a simple choice : does the government and the state exist at the behest of individuals, or the other way around.
Strong statists see the government as bestowing rights on individuals. Libertarians see it the other way around.
Nah.
You can have people take the same principles and have them end up in very different final positions.
It is, as they say, complicated.
It is complicated to you because you approach it from a Statist viewpoint.
It's in your *interests* to complicate that which is very straightforward.
Saying political philosophy can get complicated is a statist viewpoint?
Even talking about political philosophy is the wrong viewpoint.
I keep getting told on here we are a representative democracy
When most mp's fail to represent their constituents but represent their party line instead then that is no longer representative democracy that is vote for someone who claims he understands you until it is inconvenient for working his way up the greasy pole of cabinet hood
People largely vote for MPs as representatives of the party they are members of.
See my follow up on representative democracy
If you want to use that analogy (which adds a bit of drama by ignoring the spectrum nature of politics) then you should back out a bit. It's a choice of restaurants where if you don't like what is on their menus you can make something yourself, and see if you can persuade anyone else to eat it.
In politics however you haven't really got a choice of restaurants to eat at there are only two currently.
Which of these statements do you disagree with
1) Politicians are servants of those that elected them 2) Politicians should represent the views of those that elected them 3) Politicians should represent the views of their party even if they know it is not what the people who elected them want 4) Politicians should be able to decide what they were elected to do after the votes are counted.
Personally myself I think 1 and 2 are good. Currently however only 3 and 4 apply
I think when people elect Joe Blogg - Conservative more of them do so about the second part than the first.
Obviously grey areas, balance to be struck etc etc in terms of levels of rebelliousness.
You failed to answer simple questions here which do you think are right yes or no for proposition 1 to 4
You are coming at this question from the point of view of the system we have.I am coming at it from the point of view of the system we have is no longer fit for purpose we need a new one. I am not trying to be difficult
Ultimately, I think political philosophy comes down to a simple choice : does the government and the state exist at the behest of individuals, or the other way around.
Strong statists see the government as bestowing rights on individuals. Libertarians see it the other way around.
Nah.
You can have people take the same principles and have them end up in very different final positions.
It is, as they say, complicated.
It is complicated to you because you approach it from a Statist viewpoint.
It's in your *interests* to complicate that which is very straightforward.
Saying political philosophy can get complicated is a statist viewpoint?
No. You say that libertarianism is complicated. As you are a Statist that does not surprise me. That is all.
Go read back again then. RCS1000 made a point about political philosophy that I was responding to.
Okay. As I'm in the quote thread and RCS1k isn't you'll have to excuse me for not guessing that you were answering someone else entirely about something completely different.
What?
RCS1k is in the quote thread and it was his post I quoted and responded to.
The direct response was to my quote at 1:39 (my time), not RCS1k. Anyway, exciting though this exchange is I have the dulcet tones of Carrie Underwood keeping me awake on a late night coding session for something that needs delivering to a client in less than 7 hours. So I bid PB a fond good night.
Ultimately, I think political philosophy comes down to a simple choice : does the government and the state exist at the behest of individuals, or the other way around.
Strong statists see the government as bestowing rights on individuals. Libertarians see it the other way around.
Nah.
You can have people take the same principles and have them end up in very different final positions.
It is, as they say, complicated.
It is complicated to you because you approach it from a Statist viewpoint.
It's in your *interests* to complicate that which is very straightforward.
Saying political philosophy can get complicated is a statist viewpoint?
People largely vote for MPs as representatives of the party they are members of.
See my follow up on representative democracy
If you want to use that analogy (which adds a bit of drama by ignoring the spectrum nature of politics) then you should back out a bit. It's a choice of restaurants where if you don't like what is on their menus you can make something yourself, and see if you can persuade anyone else to eat it.
In politics however you haven't really got a choice of restaurants to eat at there are only two currently.
Which of these statements do you disagree with
1) Politicians are servants of those that elected them 2) Politicians should represent the views of those that elected them 3) Politicians should represent the views of their party even if they know it is not what the people who elected them want 4) Politicians should be able to decide what they were elected to do after the votes are counted.
Personally myself I think 1 and 2 are good. Currently however only 3 and 4 apply
I think when people elect Joe Blogg - Conservative more of them do so about the second part than the first.
Obviously grey areas, balance to be struck etc etc in terms of levels of rebelliousness.
You failed to answer simple questions here which do you think are right yes or no for proposition 1 to 4
I agree with 1 and 2.
4 I agree with the underlying principle rather than the particular way you've chosen to phrase it. Disagree with 3 (subject to the practicalities).
Ultimately, I think political philosophy comes down to a simple choice : does the government and the state exist at the behest of individuals, or the other way around.
Strong statists see the government as bestowing rights on individuals. Libertarians see it the other way around.
Nah.
You can have people take the same principles and have them end up in very different final positions.
It is, as they say, complicated.
It is complicated to you because you approach it from a Statist viewpoint.
It's in your *interests* to complicate that which is very straightforward.
Saying political philosophy can get complicated is a statist viewpoint?
No. You say that libertarianism is complicated. As you are a Statist that does not surprise me. That is all.
Go read back again then. RCS1000 made a point about political philosophy that I was responding to.
Okay. As I'm in the quote thread and RCS1k isn't you'll have to excuse me for not guessing that you were answering someone else entirely about something completely different.
What?
RCS1k is in the quote thread and it was his post I quoted and responded to.
The direct response was to my quote at 1:39 (my time), not RCS1k. Anyway, exciting though this exchange is I have the dulcet tones of Carrie Underwood keeping me awake on a late night coding session for something that needs delivering to a client in less than 7 hours. So I bid PB a fond good night.
No, my initial response was at 12:33 to RCS1k. He had made a comment about political philosophy, that I quoted and responded to.
It was only after that you quoted me and got the wrong end of the stick by applying it directly to libertarianism.
You can have people take the same principles and have them end up in very different final positions.
It is, as they say, complicated.
It is complicated to you because you approach it from a Statist viewpoint.
It's in your *interests* to complicate that which is very straightforward.
Saying political philosophy can get complicated is a statist viewpoint?
People largely vote for MPs as representatives of the party they are members of.
See my follow up on representative democracy
If you want to use that analogy (which adds a bit of drama by ignoring the spectrum nature of politics) then you should back out a bit. It's a choice of restaurants where if you don't like what is on their menus you can make something yourself, and see if you can persuade anyone else to eat it.
In politics however you haven't really got a choice of restaurants to eat at there are only two currently.
Which of these statements do you disagree with
1) Politicians are servants of those that elected them 2) Politicians should represent the views of those that elected them 3) Politicians should represent the views of their party even if they know it is not what the people who elected them want 4) Politicians should be able to decide what they were elected to do after the votes are counted.
Personally myself I think 1 and 2 are good. Currently however only 3 and 4 apply
I think when people elect Joe Blogg - Conservative more of them do so about the second part than the first.
Obviously grey areas, balance to be struck etc etc in terms of levels of rebelliousness.
You failed to answer simple questions here which do you think are right yes or no for proposition 1 to 4
I agree with 1 and 2.
4 I agree with the underlying principle rather than the particular way you've chosen to phrase it. Disagree with 3 (subject to the practicalities).
Feel free to rephrase 4 then I am partisan and I phrased it in a way that suited my agenda.I will read your phrasing with a reasonably open mind.
Thinking about it (possibly a partisan viewpoint) I think to me it comes down to are politicians servants or masters. In my mind the answer is clear that they are servants,I fear under our present system they see themselves as masters
You are coming at this question from the point of view of the system we have.I am coming at it from the point of view of the system we have is no longer fit for purpose we need a new one. I am not trying to be difficult
I think you are talking principles while I'm speaking practicalities.
Which is an age old problem in political philosophy.
Feel free to rephrase 4 then I am partisan and I phrased it in a way that suited my agenda.I will read your phrasing with a reasonably open mind.
Thinking about it (possibly a partisan viewpoint) I think to me it comes down to are politicians servants or masters. In my mind the answer is clear that they are servants,I fear under our present system they see themselves as masters
As to how politicians see themselves that's a whole other matter.
With 4, what you have is the distinction between delegates and representatives (however you like to phrase it. In servant terms you can have a steward who's trusted to manage the estate, or a housemaid who's been sent to buy eggs, and the varying degrees of autonomy in between).
So a different way to phrase 4 is that politicians are (to an extent, and here's the grey area) elected to use their judgement in situations that arise.
(I'm not rephrasing it precisely so much as talking around the point I suppose, but hopefully you take my meaning).
Just reread 3 now maybe I am misunderstanding you viewpoint because of the way I phrased 3
You are really thinking that an elected politician should represent the views of their party over the views of the constituents that voted for them?
Does that really seem like a representative democracy to you? where the views of the voters are ignored because the party says so? Where in here does the constituency representation happen?. In our parliament as OGH often states we vote for people to represent us not parties. If the constituency I am in happened to want to outlaw gay marriage should they not have that view represented by their elected representative (note I am against gay marriage but merely because I am against all state sanctioning of relationships, however living in a staunchly conservative muslim area I imagine they would be against gay marriage for other reasons). Your argument appears to be they get represented if it is convenient for the party of the member they voted for. Doesnt seem much of a representative democracy to me there
You are coming at this question from the point of view of the system we have.I am coming at it from the point of view of the system we have is no longer fit for purpose we need a new one. I am not trying to be difficult
I think you are talking principles while I'm speaking practicalities.
Which is an age old problem in political philosophy.
If a political system is not built on principles it is built on sewage
Just reread 3 now maybe I am misunderstanding you viewpoint because of the way I phrased 3
You are really thinking that an elected politician should represent the views of their party over the views of the constituents that voted for them?
Does that really seem like a representative democracy to you? where the views of the voters are ignored because the party says so? Where in here does the constituency representation happen?. In our parliament as OGH often states we vote for people to represent us not parties. If the constituency I am in happened to want to outlaw gay marriage should they not have that view represented by their elected representative (note I am against gay marriage but merely because I am against all state sanctioning of relationships, however living in a staunchly conservative muslim area I imagine they would be against gay marriage for other reasons). Your argument appears to be they get represented if it is convenient for the party of the member they voted for. Doesnt seem much of a representative democracy to me there
No, you wrote 3 as "politicians should party > constituents" and I disagreed with that.
Subject to the caveats of how you actually know what the constituents feel (not just the vocal ones) and that while legally they vote for people, in practice parties dominate voting decisions.
Comments
It's maddening not to have a natural home in any party. My UK house is in a constituency that might well become a Con/UKIP marginal and so I'm struggling between two options that I'm not entirely keen on.
The tape was sent to the UKIP NEC months ago (hence why he was deselected - under threat of it being publicly released if he was the candidate)
And she did legally change her name to Mrs British Battleaxe, which lets face it makes her more appropriate indeed a shoo in as the Monster Raving Loony candidate, a party that lookes saner by the minute.
She came 3rd in the Jungle.
Yes, to put the theological spin on it, controlling environmental risk factors as much as possible to reduce excess risk beyond your genetic baseline is essentially like saying, "God helps those who help themselves".
I'd never have taken my husband's if I knew what a pain in the arse it was - and having an apostrophe in it just made it worse. I swear I must exist in about 20 different variations depending on the spelling of my name.
And there I was thinking you were special. Disappointing.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-25718064
It amuses me a little that people object very strongly to genetically modified tomatoes, but genetically modified people seem fine!
https://britishbattleaxe.wordpress.com/books/
(Very nice radio performance of Importance of Being Earnest available on iPlayer for any insomniacs out there.)
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b007jv0p
As for putting reputations above the interests of abused children, step forward Conservative, Labour and Liberal Democrat parties (Tim Fortescue, Rotherham, Rochdale/Cyril Smith).
Gay rights campaigners are NOT entitled to threatened visiting religious leaders with imprisonment, disrupt religious events and generally demonise fully 10% of the population of the UK.
You also know sod all about the doctrine of papal infallibility.
As an aside, I note you have this 'Jacobite nobleman' schtick. Considering James II (or whatever pretender you wish to stop at) was the last Catholic King of England, you are not only an anti-Catholic bigot, but a stupid one at that.
The problem is that the general public's understanding of risk and probability is absolutely terrible. People swerve irrationally between the Precautionary and Wait-and-See principles, with little conception of the more realistic middle ground in most problems, not to mention the unsolvable, "wicked", nature of most real world problems. Accurate risk evaluation/assessment is next to non-existent. In fact, it gets laughed at for being indecipherable & needlessly obscure (viz. Donald Rumsfeld and his quite accurate desciption of the principles behind risk, regardless of what you think of his politics or eventual decisions).
In my more idle moments, I reflect that much be done to improve the country simply by requiring all adults to pass a mandatory exam on basic probability theory before allowing them to vote...
Breaking
Siege in central Sydney financial district
Coffee shop 20 hostages and an Arabic type flag being shown
Edit - understand reason is Australia's facilitation of personnel going to Middle East to engage in the wars
Lindt chocolate cafe, St Martins place
Not good..... Where next?
https://twitter.com/50ShedsofGrey
Holy crap holy crap
Reporter channel 9 on scene
They have all the hostages have been placed in the windows facing outwards with hands on glass
At least one Hostages is running her hand across her throat to indicate throat cut
Calling this very serious incident
Channel 9 Sydney
Sydney opera house being evacuated incident being reported...... No further information at the moment but they apparently have shut down Sydney air space but airport still largely operational at the moment.
貯金 chokin (bank savings - short o sound ちょきん )
the kin is metal/gold in both cases
Are you in Japan, Chokin-san?
Well done for investing in Alzheimer's research by the way. It's what I would do if I had substantial funds to invest. It's the most important thing.
http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/4ba036d8-8350-11e4-9a9a-00144feabdc0.html#axzz3Lv9ccmvr
If a government seriously wanted to reduce the death of their people then it would be best to mandate speed monitors and dashboard cams in every car. That would cut more unneccesary deaths per year than all the anti terror legislation or anti porn legislation that could ever exist in a tory wet dream.....They don't however do it
http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/police-clear-martin-place-after-gunman-holds-hostages-at-lindt-chocolat-cafe-20141215-127824.html
https://au.news.yahoo.com/video/watch/17174725/yahoo-7-live-sydney/
Local radio station reporting that the hostage takers are stating they have "devices all over the city" and they demand to "talk to the Prime Minister live on radio"
Sydney opera house evacuated due to possible suspicious package (could of course just be precautionary as everyone is nervous for obvious reasons.
http://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/live/2014/dec/15/sydney-siege-reports-of-hostage-situation-inside-martin-place-cafe-live#block-548e2827e4b0be1a0a43439d
http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2014/12/jim-murphy-unveils-plan-rewrite-scottish-labours-clause-iv
Which isn't always the case with funding a habit.
http://www.snopes.com/inboxer/household/shampoo.asp
PS the lightning risk is actually orders of magnitude more likely than the terrorist attack. Of course, comparing risks depends on the set being considered, so there will be variation, but in principle... There are many ways of defining a safe level, depending on what risk you want to measure and how you want to define safety. They're nearly all probabilistic in nature, to reflect the points you raise. I know that sounds like a facile answer, but it's the truth. The obvious silly-but-true example: water is lethal. It just depends on what you do with it and how much of it you use.
To be even more facile, if the overall harm from SLS to the population from carcinogenic effects is lower than the overall benefit to the population derived from the joy of luxuriating in those rich, soapy suds, then it's a justifiable risk. The data to date isn't all-encompassing but broadly seems to support a low, though perhaps not zero, risk from SLS, so that facile statement might actually be entirely true.
Of course, in an ideal world, people would be sufficiently educated to make that judgement for themselves in a genuinely informed manner (and therefore create a market for an alternative, if sufficient numbers were prepared to sacrifice the lather) but, well...
The saddest part about all this discussion is that humanity - especially in the UK - has more access to free high-quality information about risk than ever before but most people haven't been taught how to interpret it in a balanced/rational way.
You can have people take the same principles and have them end up in very different final positions.
It is, as they say, complicated.
PS the lightning risk is actually orders of magnitude more likely than the terrorist attack. Of course, comparing risks depends on the set being considered, so there will be variation, but in principle...
The parties in power understand this very well imo. They are only interested in the death of citizens when it enables them to push for more control over those people
Politicians are not there to be leaders they are there to enact the will of the people that elected them and the sooner they learn to do what they are told the better
It's in your *interests* to complicate that which is very straightforward.
As you are a Statist that does not surprise me.
That is all.
I keep getting told on here we are a representative democracy
When most mp's fail to represent their constituents but represent their party line instead then that is no longer representative democracy that is vote for someone who claims he understands you until it is inconvenient for working his way up the greasy pole of cabinet hood
Representative democracy these days in this country is like
Walking into a chinese restaurant and being told you can't order what you like you can only order set meal A or set meal B, however we reserve the right to change what is set meal A or B after you have ordered and the chef's might have a discussion and give you a previously unplanned set meal C instead.
Most of us would turn round and walk out as we had come in for a particular combination of dishes that we liked not to be fobbed off with what the chef wanted to give us
I've only been learning Japanese for a very short time, so I'm still at a basic level. Slowly getting better though; it's a really fascinating language to conceptualise.
I'm not in Japan now, but I worked there briefly, many years ago, and have retained an affection for the country and its people. Never really learnt the language properly back then, which I've always regretted, and now that I have more time I'm trying to rectify that mistake! Thank you for the short lesson.
BTW, do you know of any good sources for reading simple Japanese stories or articles either in hiragana or (faster at my current stage) romaji. Preferably not too much slang, so I suppose most manga is out. I want to get more familiarity with the written language by exposure, but it's extremely difficult to find non-kanji text.
This is quite a good way- hover your mouse over the kanji and it pops up readings and definitions. That way you can attempt anything you like on a web page
がんばって！
RCS1k is in the quote thread and it was his post I quoted and responded to.
Arigato gozaimashita, dugarbandier-San.
Which of these statements do you disagree with
1) Politicians are servants of those that elected them
2) Politicians should represent the views of those that elected them
3) Politicians should represent the views of their party even if they know it is not what the people who elected them want
4) Politicians should be able to decide what they were elected to do after the votes are counted.
Personally myself I think 1 and 2 are good. Currently however only 3 and 4 apply
All that ends in is which menu do I despise least
Obviously grey areas, balance to be struck etc etc in terms of levels of rebelliousness.
You are coming at this question from the point of view of the system we have.I am coming at it from the point of view of the system we have is no longer fit for purpose we need a new one. I am not trying to be difficult
Anyway, exciting though this exchange is I have the dulcet tones of Carrie Underwood keeping me awake on a late night coding session for something that needs delivering to a client in less than 7 hours. So I bid PB a fond good night.
4 I agree with the underlying principle rather than the particular way you've chosen to phrase it. Disagree with 3 (subject to the practicalities).
It was only after that you quoted me and got the wrong end of the stick by applying it directly to libertarianism.
Thinking about it (possibly a partisan viewpoint) I think to me it comes down to are politicians servants or masters. In my mind the answer is clear that they are servants,I fear under our present system they see themselves as masters
Which is an age old problem in political philosophy.
Studies for the Department for Work and Pensions found those affected by the cap were 41% more likely to get a job than people who were unaffected.
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-30470116
Something else Ed was on the wrong side of the argument on.....
With 4, what you have is the distinction between delegates and representatives (however you like to phrase it. In servant terms you can have a steward who's trusted to manage the estate, or a housemaid who's been sent to buy eggs, and the varying degrees of autonomy in between).
So a different way to phrase 4 is that politicians are (to an extent, and here's the grey area) elected to use their judgement in situations that arise.
(I'm not rephrasing it precisely so much as talking around the point I suppose, but hopefully you take my meaning).
Just reread 3 now maybe I am misunderstanding you viewpoint because of the way I phrased 3
You are really thinking that an elected politician should represent the views of their party over the views of the constituents that voted for them?
Does that really seem like a representative democracy to you? where the views of the voters are ignored because the party says so? Where in here does the constituency representation happen?. In our parliament as OGH often states we vote for people to represent us not parties. If the constituency I am in happened to want to outlaw gay marriage should they not have that view represented by their elected representative (note I am against gay marriage but merely because I am against all state sanctioning of relationships, however living in a staunchly conservative muslim area I imagine they would be against gay marriage for other reasons). Your argument appears to be they get represented if it is convenient for the party of the member they voted for. Doesnt seem much of a representative democracy to me there
BRADFORD and district chairman Jason Smith begged an unnamed woman online to let him see her in a bikini.
Subject to the caveats of how you actually know what the constituents feel (not just the vocal ones) and that while legally they vote for people, in practice parties dominate voting decisions.